ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Utility of Augmented Reality Glasses With Waveguide Optics and Facial Recognition Technology for Patient Verification in a Simulated Outpatient Setting: Physician Questionnaire Survey Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Augmented reality (AR) glasses with waveguide optics and facial recognition may enhance patient identification and clinical workflows. However, their usability among physicians has not yet been evaluated. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of prototype AR glasses with facial recognition in a simulated outpatient setting. Methods: In May 2025, 14 urologists from a single institution tested prototype AR glasses developed by Cellid Inc. The device incorporates waveguide-based optical displays, a miniature camera, and deep learning-based facial recognition software. Physicians identified preregistered mock patients, with demographic and clinical data displayed on the right lens. After the trial, participants completed an anonymous questionnaire on usability, comfort, visibility, and self-reported symptoms using 3- or 5-point Likert scales. Results: Eleven participants (79%; 95% CI 52%-92%) found the device helpful in performing clinical procedures, and 12 (86%; 95% CI 60%-96%) believed it improved patient safety. Most participants adapted quickly to wearing the device, and 79% (95% CI 52%-92%) expressed a willingness to use it in future practice. Four of 13 respondents (31%; 95% CI 13%-58%) selected "somewhat tired" for eye fatigue, and only 1 participant experienced minor and transient physical symptoms including headache and nausea. Three of 13 respondents (23%; 95% CI 8%-50%) rated the glasses as slightly heavy, and among the 5 participants who wore prescription glasses, 4 (80%; 95% CI 38%-96%) reported difficulty wearing the prototype over their glasses. Surrounding-environment visibility and perceived facial recognition responsiveness were generally favorable; however, 8 of 13 respondents (62%; 95% CI 36%-82%) rated the displayed patient information as slightly difficult to see. Conclusions: In this pilot study, AR glasses with facial recognition were well accepted by physicians. This technology has demonstrated perceived clinical utility and has the potential to assist medical professionals, though further refinement and larger clinical evaluations are needed.
Indexed as
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.