FIND SIMILAR ARTICLES

Find similar articles based on semantic search




Id 585
Author Wei N.J., Dougherty B., Myers A., Badawy S.M.
Title Using google glass in surgical settings: Systematic review
Reference

Wei N.J., Dougherty B., Myers A., Badawy S.M.; Using google glass in surgical settings: Systematic review ;JMIR mHealth and uHealth vol:6 issue: 3.0 page:

Link to article https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85060342035&doi=10.2196%2fmhealth.9409&partnerID=40&md5=ad78c2f582d1dbd1a5f7d9f3cf7bfd08
Abstract Background: In recent years, wearable devices have become increasingly attractive and the health care industry has been especially drawn to Google Glass because of its ability to serve as a head-mounted wearable device. The use of Google Glass in surgical settings is of particular interest due to the hands-free device potential to streamline workflow and maintain sterile conditions in an operating room environment. Objective: The aim is to conduct a systematic evaluation of the literature on the feasibility and acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings and to assess the potential benefits and limitations of its application. Methods: The literature was searched for articles published between January 2013 and May 2017. The search included the following databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO (EBSCO), and IEEE Xplore. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text articles. Original research articles that evaluated the feasibility, usability, or acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings were included. This review was completed following the Preferred Reporting Results of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: Of the 520 records obtained, 31 met all predefined criteria and were included in this review. Google Glass was used in various surgical specialties. Most studies were in the United States (23/31, 74%) and all were conducted in hospital settings: 29 in adult hospitals (29/31, 94%) and two in children’s hospitals (2/31, 7%). Sample sizes of participants who wore Google Glass ranged from 1 to 40. Of the 31 studies, 25 (81%) were conducted under real-time conditions or actual clinical care settings, whereas the other six (19%) were conducted under simulated environment. Twenty-six studies were pilot or feasibility studies (84%), three were case studies (10%), and two were randomized controlled trials (6%). The majority of studies examined the potential use of Google Glass as an intraoperative intervention (27/31, 87%), whereas others observed its potential use in preoperative (4/31, 13%) and postoperative settings (5/31, 16%). Google Glass was utilized as a videography and photography device (21/31, 68%), a vital sign monitor (6/31, 19%), a surgical navigation display (5/31, 16%), and as a videoconferencing tool to communicate with remote surgeons intraoperatively (5/31, 16%). Most studies reported moderate or high acceptability of using Google Glass in surgical settings. The main reported limitations of using Google Glass utilization were short battery life (8/31, 26%) and difficulty with hands-free features (5/31, 16%). Conclusions: There are promising feasibility and usability data of using Google Glass in surgical settings with particular benefits for surgical education and training. Despite existing technical limitations, Google Glass was generally well received and several studies in surgical settings acknowledged its potential for training, consultation, patient monitoring, and audiovisual recording. © Nancy J Wei, Bryn Dougherty, Aundria Myers, Sherif M Badawy.


Results:


Smaller Distance better similarity

Id View Author Title Distance
965 View Scott S.D., Brett-MacLean P., Archibald M., Hartling L. Protocol for a systematic review of the use of narrative storytelling and visual-arts-based approaches as knowledge translation tools in healthcare. 123.645
935 View Tyler N., Giles S., Daker-White G., McManus B.C., Panagioti M. A patient and public involvement workshop using visual art and priority setting to provide patients with a voice to describe quality and safety concerns: Vitamin B12 deficiency and pernicious anaemia 126.724
970 View Lankston L., Cusack P., Fremantle C., Isles C. Visual art in hospitals: Case studies and review of the evidence 132.711
798 View Gillam T. Enhancing public mental health and wellbeing through creative arts participation 134.611
695 View Bermingham A., ORourke J., Gurrin C., Collins R., Irving K., Smeaton A.F. Automatically recommending multimedia content for use in group reminiscence therap 136.547
596 View Bálint Á., Magyari J. The use of bibliotherapy in revealing and addressing the spiritual needs of cancer patients 137.293
780 View Vetter D., Barth J., Uyulmaz S., Uyulmaz S., Vonlanthen R., Belli G., Montorsi M., Bismuth H., Witt C.M., Clavien P.-A. Effects of art on surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis 139.16
949 View Awtuch A., Gȩbczyńska-Janowicz A. Art and Healthcare - Healing Potential of Artistic Interventions in Medical Settings 142.412
589 View Goyal A.A., Tur K., Mann J., Townsend W., Flanders S.A., Chopra V. Do bedside visual tools improve patient and caregiver satisfaction? A systematic review of the literature 144.127
720 View Zazulak J., Halgren C., Tan M., Grierson L.E.M. The impact of an arts-based programme on the affective and cognitive components of empathic development 146.88
Note: Due to lack of computing power, results have been previously created and saved in database