Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40404571›Full record

ReviewClinical endoscopy2025

Digital platforms, virtual reality, and augmented reality in gastrointestinal endoscopy training.

Wilfredo Pagani, Tavia Buysse, Kulwinder S Dua

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wilfredo PaganiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Tavia BuysseDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Kulwinder S DuaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Remote training in procedural tasks has experienced robust growth in recent years, spurred by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to meet the need for basic and continued skills development, including in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Remote endoscopy training offers learners the opportunity for skill acquisition, real-time feedback, and access to experts from around the world, and gives mentors the ability to educate trainees without the need to travel themselves. Remote training can be cost-effective but requires reliable technology and continuous assessment to ensure training quality. Ethical and legal issues related to patient safety may also exist. Training using virtual or augmented reality, on the other hand, does not involve patients and, hence, has no patient safety, legal, or ethical issues. Multiple endoscopic scenarios, from basic to advanced, can be practiced multiple times with immediate feedback on performance. These innovations are expected to not only increase individual endoscopy skills but also expand access to specialized care in remote areas, either in the same country or in underserved regions of the world. This review describes various techniques in remote endoscopy training with associated advantages and drawbacks and analyzes research outcomes on the effectiveness of remote endoscopy training.

Indexed as

Augmented realityComputer simulationEndoscopy, gastrointestinalVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID40404571
PMCPMC12489572

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.