Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42769756›Full record

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.

Emma Combret, Alexis Bourgeais, Frédéric Noublanche, Cédric Annweiler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Emma CombretLaboratoire de Psychologie des Pays de la Loire (UR4638), Angers, Pays de la Loire, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3879-0455
Alexis BourgeaisDepartment of Geriatric Medicine and Memory Clinic, Research Center on Autonomy and Longevity, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers, 4 rue Larrey, Angers, Pays de la Loire, 49100, France, 33 0241354725.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7689-4694
Frédéric NoublancheLaboratoire de Psychologie des Pays de la Loire (UR4638), Angers, Pays de la Loire, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6868-0346
Cédric AnnweilerLaboratoire de Psychologie des Pays de la Loire (UR4638), Angers, Pays de la Loire, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7199-8109

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

augmented realitygeriatricsmedical educationpatient simulationsimulation trainingspinal punctureuser experience

Identifiers

PMID42769756
PMCPMC13592662

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.