ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2026
Medical Extended Reality in Perioperative Medicine: A Scoping Review of Intervention Development, Feasibility Evaluation, and Translational Readiness.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To characterize methodological features, intervention characteristics, and outcome trends of medical extended reality (MXR) applications for perioperative patients. Patients and Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Searches were conducted in January 2025 and updated on August 12, 2025, across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, IEEE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, arXiv, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Primary studies evaluating immersive MXR interventions in perioperative patients were included. Results: Of 5883 records identified, 190 studies published between 2012 and 2026 were included. Most studies involved adult populations (69.5%), used virtual reality (95.8%), and delivered interventions preoperatively, most often targeting anxiety or pain. Studies were predominantly randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy (48.4%), with few early developmental studies incorporating user-centered design (2.6%). Early-stage feasibility studies (47.9%) showed substantial methodological and outcome heterogeneity, with patient satisfaction (25.3%) and feasibility (18.4%) infrequently prioritized as primary outcomes. Studies commonly evaluated multiple intervention mechanisms, such as distraction and education, within single designs (35.3%), and some delivered interventions across multiple perioperative phases (10.5%). Few studies included MXR comparator conditions (6.8%). Conclusion: Perioperative MXR shows promising signals of efficacy and feasibility based on reported study outcomes; however, these favorable trends should be interpreted cautiously given possible publication bias and the absence of a formal risk-of-bias assessment. Limited use of user-centered design, inconsistent and nonvalidated measurement of feasibility outcomes, and mechanistic ambiguity may constrain translation. Greater alignment with staged development frameworks and more rigorous feasibility evaluation are needed to support implementation. Preregistration: https://osf.io/nkwfy/wiki?wiki=yqanp.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.