Background Mixed Reality technology may provide many advantages over traditional teaching methods. Despite its potential, the technology has yet to be used for the formal assessment of clinical competency. This study sought to collect validity evidence and assess the feasibility of using the HoloLens 2 mixed reality headset for the conduct and augmentation of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted to compare the assessment of undergraduate medical students undertaking OSCEs via HoloLens 2 live (HLL) and recorded (HLR), and gold-standard in-person (IP) methods. An augmented mixed reality scenario was also assessed. Results Thirteen undergraduate participants completed a total of 65 OSCE stations. Overall inter-modality correlation was 0.81 (p = 0.01), 0.98 (p = 0.01) and 0.82 (p = 0.01) for IP vs. HLL, HLL vs. HLR and IP vs. HLR respectively. Skill based correlations for IP vs. HLR were assessed for history taking (0.82, p = 0.01), clinical examination (0.81, p = 0.01), procedural (0.88, p = 0.01) and clinical skills (0.92, p = 0.01), and assessment of a virtual mixed reality patient (0.74, p = 0.01). The HoloLens device was deemed to be usable and practical (Standard Usability Scale (SUS) score = 51.5), and the technology was thought to deliver greater flexibility and convenience, and have the potential to expand and enhance assessment opportunities. Conclusions HoloLens 2 is comparable to traditional in-person examination of undergraduate medical students for both live and recorded assessments, and therefore is a valid and robust method for objectively assessing performance. The technology is in its infancy, and users need to develop confidence in its usability and reliability as an assessment tool. However, the potential to integrate additional functionality including holographic content, automated tracking and data analysis, and to facilitate remote assessment may allow the technology to enhance, expand and standardise examinations across a range of educational contexts.
Scarring presents a significant global burden, with an estimated 100 million patients developing scarring after surgery annually. 1 Keloid Background: Keloids and hypertrophic scars cause physical and psychosocial problems. A combination of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) may enhance the treatment of pathologic scars, although the evidence base is limited. The authors compared the efficacy and complication rates of combination intralesional TAC and 5-FU with those of monotherapy intralesional TAC or 5-FU for the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was treatment efficacy (51% to 100% improvement). Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: Of 277 articles screened, 13 studies were included, comprising 12 randomized control trials and one nonrandomized study. Six studies compared combination intralesional therapy versus monotherapy 5-FU, and nine studies compared combination intralesional therapy versus monotherapy TAC. The combined group demonstrated superior objective treatment efficacy compared with the monotherapy TAC group (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.22 to 5.35; I 2 = 0%; P < 0.00001) and monotherapy 5-FU group (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.21 to 7.87; I 2 = 0%; P < 0.0001). Telangiectasia was less frequent in combination therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.52; I 2 = 0%; P = 0.0003) compared with monotherapy TAC. Conclusions: Combined intralesional TAC and 5-FU administration demonstrated superior treatment efficacy outcomes compared with monotherapy TAC or 5-FU. Patient-reported outcome measures should be incorporated in the design of future research to justify clinical recommendations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.