ArticleJMIR XR and spatial computing2026
User Experience Comparison of a Traditional Mannequin-Based and an Augmented Reality Lumbar Puncture Simulator in Geriatric Medicine Training: Questionnaire Study.
Article in JMIR XR and spatial computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar puncture (LP) is a diagnostic procedure in geriatric medicine but may be technically challenging in older adults with spinal deformities, osteoarthritis, frailty, or cognitive impairment. Simulation-based training can provide repeated practice without patient risk. Augmented reality (AR) systems may improve anatomical visualization and sensory feedback, but their added value compared with mannequin-based simulators and whether perceptions differ according to clinical experience remain uncertain. Objective: This study aimed to compare the user experience (UX) of a traditional mannequin-based LP simulator (M43E; T-S) and an augmented reality simulator with haptic feedback (Sim&Care 2; AR-S) across levels of expertise. Methods: We conducted a single-center, randomized-order, within-participant comparative UX study at Angers University Hospital, France, in June 2025. A total of 30 participants (n=7, 23.3% sixth-year medical students; n=16, 53.3% postgraduate medical students; and n=7, 23.3% graduated physicians) used both simulators for 15 minutes each, with the exposure order randomized. After each session, participants completed an exploratory 5-point Likert questionnaire assessing face validity (FV), usability, perceived educational value (PEV), and overall satisfaction. After both sessions, they reported simulator preference, reasons for preference, and intention to reuse each simulator; open-ended comments were collected. Dimension-level paired comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, expertise-group comparisons used the Kruskal-Wallis test, and categorical outcomes were analyzed using the chi-square test. Item-level analyses were considered exploratory. Results: The AR-S achieved higher composite scores than the T-S for FV (median 3.8 [IQR 3.6-4.2] vs 3.4 [IQR 3.2-3.8]; Conclusions: AR and traditional mannequin-based LP simulation appear to offer distinct and complementary educational advantages rather than one modality being uniformly superior. The AR-S was valued for anatomical and sensory realism and PEV, whereas the T-S retained advantages related to procedural familiarity and ease of use with conventional equipment. These findings support tailoring simulator selection to learner expertise and educational objectives. Larger studies incorporating objective procedural performance are needed to determine how the modalities should be integrated into LP curricula.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.