| Title |
The use of augmented reality glasses in central line simulation: "see one, simulate many, do one competently, and teach everyone"
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s160704 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cynthia Y Huang, Jonathan B Thomas, Abdullah Alismail, Avi Cohen, Waleed Almutairi, Noha S Daher, Michael H Terry, Laren D Tan |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using augmented reality (AR) glasses in central line simulation by novice operators and compare its efficacy to standard central line simulation/teaching. This was a prospective randomized controlled study enrolling 32 novice operators. Subjects were randomized on a 1:1 basis to either simulation using the augmented virtual reality glasses or simulation using conventional instruction. The study was conducted in tertiary-care urban teaching hospital. A total of 32 adult novice central line operators with no visual or auditory impairments were enrolled. Medical doctors, respiratory therapists, and sleep technicians were recruited from the medical field. The mean time for AR placement in the AR group was 71±43 s, and the time to internal jugular (IJ) cannulation was 316±112 s. There was no significant difference in median (minimum, maximum) time (seconds) to IJ cannulation for those who were in the AR group and those who were not (339 [130, 550] vs 287 [35, 475], p=0.09), respectively. There was also no significant difference between the two groups in median total procedure time (524 [329, 792] vs 469 [198, 781], p=0.29), respectively. There was a significant difference in the adherence level between the two groups favoring the AR group (p=0.003). AR simulation of central venous catheters in manikins is feasible and efficacious in novice operators as an educational tool. Future studies are recommended in this area as it is a promising area of medical education. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 44% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 24% |
| Unknown | 33 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 32 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,291,952
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,061
of 340,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 340,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them