↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
412 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
923 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00464-016-4800-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Z. Barsom, M. Graafland, M. P. Schijven

Abstract

Computer-based applications are increasingly used to support the training of medical professionals. Augmented reality applications (ARAs) render an interactive virtual layer on top of reality. The use of ARAs is of real interest to medical education because they blend digital elements with the physical learning environment. This will result in new educational opportunities. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate to which extent augmented reality applications are currently used to validly support medical professionals training. PubMed, Embase, INSPEC and PsychInfo were searched using predefined inclusion criteria for relevant articles up to August 2015. All study types were considered eligible. Articles concerning AR applications used to train or educate medical professionals were evaluated. Twenty-seven studies were found relevant, describing a total of seven augmented reality applications. Applications were assigned to three different categories. The first category is directed toward laparoscopic surgical training, the second category toward mixed reality training of neurosurgical procedures and the third category toward training echocardiography. Statistical pooling of data could not be performed due to heterogeneity of study designs. Face-, construct- and concurrent validity was proven for two applications directed at laparoscopic training, face- and construct validity for neurosurgical procedures and face-, content- and construct validity in echocardiography training. In the literature, none of the ARAs completed a full validation process for the purpose of use. Augmented reality applications that support blended learning in medical training have gained public and scientific interest. In order to be of value, applications must be able to transfer information to the user. Although promising, the literature to date is lacking to support such evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 923 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 919 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 134 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 99 11%
Student > Bachelor 92 10%
Researcher 91 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 49 5%
Other 181 20%
Unknown 277 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 158 17%
Computer Science 136 15%
Engineering 106 11%
Social Sciences 39 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 3%
Other 138 15%
Unknown 318 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,091,581
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#73
of 6,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,985
of 298,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#1
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,044 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.