Efficacy and implementation of augmented reality in healthcare: a scoping review in randomized controlled trials
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 2, 2026
Automatic Surgery in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using Augmented Reality
Published on: August 9, 2024
Tuti Nuraini1, Rifqi Alifa Bestari1, Kuei-Ru Chou2
1Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Indonesia, Jl. Prof. DR. Sudjono D. Pusponegoro, Pondok Cina, Kecamatan Beji, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat, 16424, Indonesia.
Background:
Despite medical advances, significant challenges in routine practice persist, including diagnostic variability from traditional two-dimensional (2D) imaging, surgical risks due to anatomical uncertainty, and poor patient comprehension that contributes to perioperative anxiety. Augmented Reality (AR) offers a solution by overlaying three-dimensional (3D) digital information onto the real-world environment, providing real-time guidance to address these clinical gaps. However, while AR's clinical efficacy is increasingly proven, its practical integration into standard clinical workflows remains fragmented.
Objective:
This study presents a scoping review restricted to RCT-level evidence to systematically map the scope, distinct clinical capabilities, implementation limitations, and ethical frameworks of AR-based healthcare systems.
Methods:
A systematic search was conducted across PubMed and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials involving AR interventions in healthcare. Methodological quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist. A total of 25 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were analyzed and categorized based on clinical domains (education, diagnosis, intervention, and rehabilitation) and their functional roles (delivering or assisting).
Results:
AR was associated with improvements in surgical precision, reductions in perioperative anxiety and better functional outcomes in rehabilitation. In education, AR 3D models fostered patient engagement and shared decision-making. However, widespread adoption is impeded by technical constraints, physiological side effects like cybersickness, high initial costs, and inherent methodological difficulties in blinding.
Conclusions:
While AR demonstrates distinct capabilities to enhance clinical interventions and empower patient care, technical, logistical, and ethical hurdles persist. Future research must prioritize seamless interoperability with Electronic Health Records (EHR), integration with Artificial Intelligence (AI) decision support, robust health data architectures, and optimized human-computer interaction (HCI) factor design to prevent exacerbating the socioeconomic digital divide.
