Augmented Humanity: A Systematic Mapping Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Guerrero G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8778398 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Introduction:The field of augmented reality (AR) is rapidly growing with many new potential applications in medical education. This systematic review investigated the current state of augmented reality applications (ARAs) and developed an analytical model to guide future research in assessing ARAs as teaching tools in medical education. Methods:A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and included publications from January 1, 2000 to June 18, 2018. Inclusion criteria were experimental studies evaluating ARAs implemented in healthcare education published in English. Our review evaluated study quality and determined whether studies assessed ARA validity using criteria established by the GRADE Working Group and Gallagher et al., respectively. These findings were used to formulate an analytical model to assess the readiness of ARAs for implementation in medical education. Results:We identified 100,807 articles in the initial literature search; 36 met inclusion criteria for final review and were categorized into three categories: Surgery (23), Anatomy (9), and Other (4). The overall quality of the studies was poor and no ARA was tested for all five stages of validity. Our analytical model evaluates the importance of research quality, application content, outcomes, and feasibility of an ARA to gauge its readiness for implementation. Conclusion:While AR technology is growing at a rapid rate, the current quality and breadth of AR research in medical training is insufficient to recommend the adoption into educational curricula. We hope our analytical model will help standardize AR assessment methods and define the role of AR technology in medical education.
| S-EPMC7082471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAugmented reality (AR) is a technology that integrates digital information into the user's real-world environment. It offers a new approach for treatments and education in medicine. AR aids in surgery planning and patient treatment and helps explain complex medical situations to patients and their relatives.ObjectiveThis systematic and bibliographic review offers an overview of the development of apps in AR with a medical use case from March 2012 to June 2017. This work can aid as a guide to the literature and categorizes the publications in the field of AR research.MethodsFrom March 2012 to June 2017, a total of 1309 publications from PubMed and Scopus databases were manually analyzed and categorized based on a predefined taxonomy. Of the total, 340 duplicates were removed and 631 publications were excluded due to incorrect classification or unavailable technical data. The remaining 338 publications were original research studies on AR. An assessment of the maturity of the projects was conducted on these publications by using the technology readiness level. To provide a comprehensive process of inclusion and exclusion, the authors adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.ResultsThe results showed an increasing trend in the number of publications on AR in medicine. There were no relevant clinical trials on the effect of AR in medicine. Domains that used display technologies seemed to be researched more than other medical fields. The technology readiness level showed that AR technology is following a rough bell curve from levels 4 to 7. Current AR technology is more often applied to treatment scenarios than training scenarios.ConclusionsThis work discusses the applicability and future development of augmented- and mixed-reality technologies such as wearable computers and AR devices. It offers an overview of current technology and a base for researchers interested in developing AR apps in medicine. The field of AR is well researched, and there is a positive trend in its application, but its use is still in the early stages in the field of medicine and it is not widely adopted in clinical practice. Clinical studies proving the effectiveness of applied AR technologies are still lacking.
| S-EPMC6658230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe counterfeiting of anti-malarials represents a form of attack on global public health in which fake and substandard anti-malarials serve as de facto weapons of mass destruction, particularly in resource-constrained endemic settings, where malaria causes nearly 660,000 preventable deaths and threatens millions of lives annually. It has been estimated that fake anti-malarials contribute to nearly 450,000 preventable deaths every year. This crime against humanity is often underestimated or ignored. This study attempts to describe and characterize the direct and indirect effects of counterfeit anti-malarials on public health, clinical care and socio-economic conditions.MethodsA search was performed using key databases, WHO documents, and English language search engines. Of 262 potential articles that were identified using a fixed set of criteria, a convenience sample of 105 appropriate articles was selected for this review.ResultsArtemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is an important tool in the fight against malaria, but a sizable number of patients are unable to afford to this first-line treatment. Consequently, patients tend to procure cheaper anti-malarials, which may be fake or substandard. Forensic palynology reveals that counterfeits originate in Asia. Fragile drug regulations, ineffective law-enforcement agencies and corruption further burden ailing healthcare facilities. Substandard/fake anti-malarials can cause (a) economic sabotage; (b) therapeutic failure; (c) increased risk of the emergence and spread of resistant strains of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax; (d) an undermining of trust/confidence in healthcare stakeholders/systems; and, (e) serious side effects or death.ConclusionCombating counterfeit anti-malarials is a complex task due to limited resources and poor techniques for the detection and identification of fake anti-malarials. This situation calls for sustainable, global, scientific research and policy change. Further, responsible stakeholders in combination with the synthesis and supply of next generation malaria control tools, such as low-cost anti-malarials, must promote the development of a counterfeit-free and malaria-free future.
| S-EPMC4064812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComputer-assisted solutions are changing surgical practice continuously. One of the most disruptive technologies among the computer-integrated surgical techniques is Augmented Reality (AR). While Augmented Reality is increasingly used in several medical specialties, its potential benefit in orthopedic surgery is not yet clear. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of the current state of knowledge and the applicability of AR in orthopedic surgery.MethodsA systematic review of the current literature was performed to find the state of knowledge and applicability of AR in Orthopedic surgery. A systematic search of the following three databases was performed: "PubMed", "Cochrane Library" and "Web of Science". The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items on Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and it has been published and registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO).Results31 studies and reports are included and classified into the following categories: Instrument / Implant Placement, Osteotomies, Tumor Surgery, Trauma, and Surgical Training and Education. Quality assessment could be performed in 18 studies. Among the clinical studies, there were six case series with an average score of 90% and one case report, which scored 81% according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist (JBI CAC). The 11 cadaveric studies scored 81% according to the QUACS scale (Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies).ConclusionThis manuscript provides 1) a summary of the current state of knowledge and research of Augmented Reality in orthopedic surgery presented in the literature, and 2) a discussion by the authors presenting the key remarks required for seamless integration of Augmented Reality in the future surgical practice.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019128569.
| S-EPMC7023780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAugmented reality (AR) is a rapidly expanding technology; it comprises the generation of new images from digital information in the real physical environment of a person, which simulates an environment where the artificial and real are mixed. The use of AR in physiotherapy has shown benefits in certain areas of patient health. However, these benefits have not been studied as a whole.ObjectiveThis study aims to ascertain the current scientific evidence on AR therapy as a complement to physiotherapy and to determine the areas in which it has been used the most and which variables and methods have been most effective.MethodsA systematic review registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted from July to August 2021 in the PubMed, PEDro, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library scientific databases using the keywords augmented reality, physiotherapy, physical therapy, exercise therapy, rehabilitation, physical medicine, fitness, and occupational therapy. The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network scale to determine the degree of recommendation. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias.ResultsIn total, 11 articles were included in the systematic review. Of the 11 articles, 4 (36%) contributed information to the meta-analysis. Overall, 64% (7/11) obtained a good level of evidence, and most had a B degree of recommendation of evidence. A total of 308 participants were analyzed. Favorable results were found for the Berg Balance Scale (standardized mean change 0.473, 95% CI -0.0877 to 1.0338; z=1.65; P=.10) and the Timed Up and Go test (standardized mean change -1.211, 95% CI -3.2005 to 0.7768; z=-1.194; P=.23).ConclusionsAR, in combination with conventional therapy, has been used for the treatment of balance and fall prevention in geriatrics, lower and upper limb functionality in stroke, pain in phantom pain syndrome, and turning in place in patients with Parkinson disease with freezing of gait. AR is effective for the improvement of balance; however, given the small size of the samples and the high heterogeneity of the studies, the results were not conclusive. Future studies using larger sample sizes and with greater homogeneity in terms of the devices used and the frequency and intensity of the interventions are needed.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020180766; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=180766.
| S-EPMC8717132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review aims to provide an update on the role of augmented reality (AR) in surgical training and investigate whether the use of AR improves performance measures compared to traditional approaches in surgical trainees.PUBMED, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, British Library and Science Direct were searched following PRIMSA guidelines. All English language original studies pertaining to AR in surgical training were eligible for inclusion. Qualitative analysis was performed and results were categorised according to simulator models, subsequently being evaluated using Messick's framework for validity and McGaghie's translational outcomes for simulation-based learning.Of the 1132 results retrieved, 45 were included in the study. 29 platforms were identified, with the highest 'level of effectiveness' recorded as 3. In terms of validity parameters, 10 AR models received a strong 'content validity' score of 2.15 models had a 'response processes' score ≥ 1. 'Internal structure' and 'consequences' were largely not discussed. 'Relations to other variables' was the best assessed criterion, with 9 platforms achieving a high score of 2. Overall, the Microsoft HoloLens received the highest level of recommendation for both validity and level of effectiveness.Augmented reality in surgical education is feasible and effective as an adjunct to traditional training. The Microsoft HoloLens has shown the most promising results across all parameters and produced improved performance measures in surgical trainees. In terms of the other simulator models, further research is required with stronger study designs, in order to validate the use of AR in surgical training.
| S-EPMC10331622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExtended reality, which encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is increasingly used in medical education. Studies assessing the effectiveness of these new educational modalities should measure relevant outcomes using outcome measurement tools with validity evidence.ObjectiveOur aim is to determine the choice of outcomes, measurement instruments, and the use of measurement instruments with validity evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of VR, AR, and MR in medical student education.MethodsWe conducted a systematic mapping review. We searched 7 major bibliographic databases from January 1990 to April 2020, and 2 reviewers screened the citations and extracted data independently from the included studies. We report our findings in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.ResultsOf the 126 retrieved RCTs, 115 (91.3%) were on VR and 11 (8.7%) were on AR. No RCT on MR in medical student education was found. Of the 115 studies on VR, 64 (55.6%) were on VR simulators, 30 (26.1%) on screen-based VR, 9 (7.8%) on VR patient simulations, and 12 (10.4%) on VR serious games. Most studies reported only a single outcome and immediate postintervention assessment data. Skills outcome was the most common outcome reported in studies on VR simulators (97%), VR patient simulations (100%), and AR (73%). Knowledge was the most common outcome reported in studies on screen-based VR (80%) and VR serious games (58%). Less common outcomes included participants' attitudes, satisfaction, cognitive or mental load, learning efficacy, engagement or self-efficacy beliefs, emotional state, competency developed, and patient outcomes. At least one form of validity evidence was found in approximately half of the studies on VR simulators (55%), VR patient simulations (56%), VR serious games (58%), and AR (55%) and in a quarter of the studies on screen-based VR (27%). Most studies used assessment methods that were implemented in a nondigital format, such as paper-based written exercises or in-person assessments where examiners observed performance (72%).ConclusionsRCTs on VR and AR in medical education report a restricted range of outcomes, mostly skills and knowledge. The studies largely report immediate postintervention outcome data and use assessment methods that are in a nondigital format. Future RCTs should include a broader set of outcomes, report on the validity evidence of the measurement instruments used, and explore the use of assessments that are implemented digitally.
| S-EPMC9047880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAugmented reality (AR) is increasingly being explored in neurosurgical practice. By visualizing patient-specific, three-dimensional (3D) models in real time, surgeons can improve their spatial understanding of complex anatomy and pathology, thereby optimizing intra-operative navigation, localization, and resection. Here, we aimed to capture applications of AR in glioma surgery, their current status and future potential.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted. This adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus electronic databases were queried from inception to October 10, 2022. Leveraging the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) framework, study eligibility was evaluated in the qualitative synthesis. Data regarding AR workflow, surgical application, and associated outcomes were then extracted. The quality of evidence was additionally examined, using hierarchical classes of evidence in neurosurgery.ResultsThe search returned 77 articles. Forty were subject to title and abstract screening, while 25 proceeded to full text screening. Of these, 22 articles met eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. During abstraction, studies were classified as "development" or "intervention" based on primary aims. Overall, AR was qualitatively advantageous, due to enhanced visualization of gliomas and critical structures, frequently aiding in maximal safe resection. Non-rigid applications were also useful in disclosing and compensating for intra-operative brain shift. Irrespective, there was high variance in registration methods and measurements, which considerably impacted projection accuracy. Most studies were of low-level evidence, yielding heterogeneous results.ConclusionsAR has increasing potential for glioma surgery, with capacity to positively influence the onco-functional balance. However, technical and design limitations are readily apparent. The field must consider the importance of consistency and replicability, as well as the level of evidence, to effectively converge on standard approaches that maximize patient benefit.
| S-EPMC10476869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists. However, selecting the right questionnaire has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process, we will provide a comprehensive overview of existing questionnaires.MethodsA systematic literature search has been conducted on August 26, 2019, using the EMBASE and PubMed medical databases. 13,345 unique records were extracted. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing loss, earache, otorrhoea, and ear-related pressure sensation, vertigo, itch, or dysgeusia) were identified. All questionnaires were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were adult population, closed-ended questions, English language of the questionnaire, and the availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument or a validation paper describing the validation process written in English.ObjectiveCreate a comprehensive overview of all validated closed-ended otology questionnaires for adults and demonstrate their basic characteristics.Main outcome measureThe number of questionnaires in English literature for the adult population, subdivided per symptom and target population.ResultsA total of 155 unique questionnaires were selected: 33 tinnitus questionnaires, 23 vertigo questionnaires, 84 hearing loss questionnaires, and 15 multiple complaint questionnaires. A protocol for further questionnaire comparison is presented.DiscussionTwo separate sequential searches were needed to identify unique questionnaires and to identify their development/validation paper. Although many ear diseases create multiple symptoms, the majority of the questionnaires were symptom specific.ConclusionMany questionnaires concerning ear-related symptoms exist and predominantly concern hearing loss, vertigo, or tinnitus. Only a few questionnaires cover the multiple complaints that ear diseases can create. The presented overview is the most comprehensive overview of otology questionnaires in literature to date. It will serve as a basis for questionnaire selection by professionals and could serve as a protocol for questionnaire selection in other fields.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017058155.
| S-EPMC8059288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionProcess mapping (PM) supports better understanding of complex systems and adaptation of improvement interventions to their local context. However, there is little research on its use in healthcare. This study (i) proposes a conceptual framework outlining quality criteria to guide the effective implementation, evaluation and reporting of PM in healthcare; (ii) reviews published PM cases to identify context and quality of PM application, and the reported benefits of using PM in healthcare.MethodsWe developed the conceptual framework by reviewing methodological guidance on PM and empirical literature on its use in healthcare improvement interventions. We conducted a systematic review of empirical literature using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Inclusion criteria were: full text empirical study; describing the process through which PM has been applied in a healthcare setting; published in English. Databases searched are: Medline, Embase, HMIC-Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL-Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus. Two independent reviewers extracted and analysed data. Each manuscript underwent line by line coding. The conceptual framework was used to evaluate adherence of empirical studies to the identified PM quality criteria. Context in which PM is used and benefits of using PM were coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsThe framework outlines quality criteria for each PM phase: (i) preparation, planning and process identification, (ii) data and information gathering, (iii) process map generation, (iv) analysis, (v) taking it forward. PM is used in a variety of settings and approaches to improvement. None of the reviewed studies (N = 105) met all ten quality criteria; 7% were compliant with 8/10 or 9/10 criteria. 45% of studies reported that PM was generated through multi-professional meetings and 15% reported patient involvement. Studies highlighted the value of PM in navigating the complexity characterising healthcare improvement interventions.ConclusionThe full potential of PM is inhibited by variance in reporting and poor adherence to underpinning principles. Greater rigour in the application of the method is required. We encourage the use and further development of the proposed framework to support training, application and reporting of PM.Trial registrationProspero ID: CRD42017082140.
| S-EPMC8048073 | biostudies-literature