Scholarlink

Background <p>Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR) are cutting-edge technologies increasingly used in medical education to enhance learning for students. AR overlays digital information, like anatomical models, onto the real world, while MR merges real and virtual environments, allowing interactive and immersive simulations. These technologies provide realistic, hands-on practice and aim to overcome the limitations of traditional teaching methods. This scoping review aims to understand the literature of AR and MR in comparison to other teaching methods among medical students.</p> Method <p>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in February 2024 using Medline, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. To ensure thoroughness, grey literature and potentially missing studies were retrieved from PubMed and Google Scholar. The collected literature was screened for comparative studies focusing on the utilization of Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR) in medical education and surgical training. Relevant studies were categorized based on the specific AR and MR platforms used, as well as the outcomes measured. Quality of the studies was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist.</p> Results <p>A total of 7,771 articles were identified. After screening and removal of duplicates, 71 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies mainly from the USA (17), Germany (11), and the UK (10). Most studies were Randomized Controlled Trials (32). Head-mounted displays, especially Microsoft HoloLens, were the most used platforms. Key outcomes showed improvements in Satisfaction/Usability (39 studies), Surgical Performance (32 studies), and Knowledge (28 studies), with mixed results in Cognitive Impact (9 improved, 8 did not) and Confidence (7). The quality of the included studies was considered adequate and sound based on the JBI checklist.</p> Conclusion <p>The integration of AR and MR in medical education shows significant potential in enhancing learning and training, improving procedural accuracy, skill acquisition, and knowledge retention. While promising, their adoption requires careful implementation, considering training needs, costs, and effectiveness.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Augmented Reality and Mixed Reality in Medical Education- A Scoping Review of Comparative Studies

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月8日

查看全文
  • Kai Iwano,
  • Mikael Gouwtama,
  • Lai Nam Tse,
  • Jessie Cunningham,
  • Michael E. Chua

摘要

Background

Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR) are cutting-edge technologies increasingly used in medical education to enhance learning for students. AR overlays digital information, like anatomical models, onto the real world, while MR merges real and virtual environments, allowing interactive and immersive simulations. These technologies provide realistic, hands-on practice and aim to overcome the limitations of traditional teaching methods. This scoping review aims to understand the literature of AR and MR in comparison to other teaching methods among medical students.

Method

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in February 2024 using Medline, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. To ensure thoroughness, grey literature and potentially missing studies were retrieved from PubMed and Google Scholar. The collected literature was screened for comparative studies focusing on the utilization of Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR) in medical education and surgical training. Relevant studies were categorized based on the specific AR and MR platforms used, as well as the outcomes measured. Quality of the studies was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist.

Results

A total of 7,771 articles were identified. After screening and removal of duplicates, 71 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies mainly from the USA (17), Germany (11), and the UK (10). Most studies were Randomized Controlled Trials (32). Head-mounted displays, especially Microsoft HoloLens, were the most used platforms. Key outcomes showed improvements in Satisfaction/Usability (39 studies), Surgical Performance (32 studies), and Knowledge (28 studies), with mixed results in Cognitive Impact (9 improved, 8 did not) and Confidence (7). The quality of the included studies was considered adequate and sound based on the JBI checklist.

Conclusion

The integration of AR and MR in medical education shows significant potential in enhancing learning and training, improving procedural accuracy, skill acquisition, and knowledge retention. While promising, their adoption requires careful implementation, considering training needs, costs, and effectiveness.