Application of Augmented Reality Technology as a Dietary Monitoring and Control Measure Among Adults: A Systematic...

Background/Objectives: Traditional dietary monitoring methods such as 24 h recalls rely on self-report, leading to recall bias and underreporting. Similarly, dietary control approaches, including portion control and calorie restriction, depend on user accuracy and consistency. Augmented reality (AR) offers a promising alternative for improving dietary monitoring and control by enhancing engagement, feedback accuracy, and user learning. This systematic review aimed to examine how AR technologies are implemented to support dietary monitoring and control and to evaluate their usability and effectiveness among adults. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase identified studies published between 2000 and 2025 that evaluated augmented reality for dietary monitoring and control among adults. Eligible studies included peer-reviewed and gray literature in English. Data extraction focused on study design, AR system type, usability, and effectiveness outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. Since the evidence based was heterogeneous in design, outcomes, and measurement, findings were synthesized qualitatively rather than pooled. Most studies utilized smartphone-based AR systems for portion size estimation, nutrition education, and behavior modification. Usability and satisfaction varied by study: One study found that 80% of participants (N = 15) were satisfied or extremely satisfied with the AR tool. Another reported that 100% of users (N = 26) rated the app easy to use, and a separate study observed a 72.5% agreement rate on ease of use among participants (N = 40). Several studies also examined portion size estimation, with one reporting a 12.2% improvement in estimation accuracy and another showing -6% estimation, though a 12.7% overestimation in energy intake persisted. Additional outcomes related to behavior, dietary knowledge, and physiological or psychological effects were also identified across the review. Common limitations included difficulty aligning markers, overestimation of amorphous foods, and short intervention durations. Despite these promising findings, the existing evidence is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneity in intervention and device design, short study durations, and variability in usability and accuracy measures. The limitations of this review warrant cautious interpretation of findings. Conclusions: AR technologies show promise for improving dietary monitoring and control by enhancing accuracy, engagement, and behavior change. Future research should focus on longitudinal designs, diverse populations, and integration with multimodal sensors and artificial intelligence.