Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review.
Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.36834/cmej.61705
复制
发表时间：
2020-03-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Greenberg, Paul B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tang, Kevin S;Cheng, Derrick L;Greenberg, Paul B
前言：增强现实(AR)领域正在迅速发展，在医学教育中有许多新的潜在应用。本文对增强现实应用(ARAS)的现状进行了调查，并建立了一个分析模型来指导未来评估ARAS作为医学教育教学工具的研究。方法：利用PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和Google Scholar进行文献检索。这项审查遵循PRISMA指南，纳入了2000年1月1日至2018年6月18日的出版物。纳入标准为评估ARAS在医疗保健教育中实施的实验研究，以英文发表。我们的综述评估了研究质量，并确定研究是否使用分级工作组和Gallagher等人分别建立的标准来评估ARA的有效性。这些发现被用来制定一个分析模型来评估ARAS在医学教育中实施的准备情况。结果：在最初的文献搜索中，我们确定了100,807篇文章；36篇符合最终审查的纳入标准，并被分为三类：外科(23篇)、解剖学(9篇)和其他(4篇)。这些研究的总体质量很差，没有对所有五个有效性阶段进行ARA测试。我们的分析模型评估ARA的研究质量、应用内容、结果和可行性的重要性，以衡量其实施的准备情况。结论：尽管AR技术正在快速增长，但目前AR研究的质量和广度不足以建议将其纳入教育课程。我们希望我们的分析模型将有助于规范AR评估方法，并确定AR技术在医学教育中的作用。
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.