## 3 Results  
From the search strategy and applied criteria, 348 articles were initially considered for analysis. After screening titles, abstracts as well as full-texts of the relevance, a total of 25 articles were found to meet our selection criteria and thus included in the final analysis (13-16, 18-38) (  
The literature has been graded using the \"Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields\", by [PERSON] et al. [12] (Table 2). The use of this checklist focused on quantitative analysis, however, was adequately generic to address different research styles. Whilst most literature generated would be categorised as a cross-sectional observational style of study, there were exceptions such as [PERSON] et al. [13] [PERSON] et al. [14] [PERSON] et al. [15] and [PERSON] et al. [16] which presented in either a non-randomised controlled trial or randomised controlled trial format. As such the varied research styles, we deemed it appropriate to utilise a generalised quantitative research review rather than checklists such as STROBE which is specified only towards observation trials [12; 17]. The generic analysis style and presentation of the table by [PERSON] et al. [12] provided the best method of analysis. The articles have been scored individually and graded as to their strengths and limitations. Most articles (88%) consisted of clear study designs and plans, with definite explanations of methodology, results and resolute conclusions. The majority of studies (92%) utilised some statistical analysis methods, which provides adequate understanding of proposed conclusions. Most of the articles (81%) outlined flaws and controlled variables, however some research failed to state their limitations [18; 19; 20; 21; 22]. Similarly, there appeared to be a lack of establishment of the study style across all studies which made determining the review approach difficult. Most appeared to be of an observational design, and few of interventional design (namely articles [13; 14; 15; 16]). From in-depth analysis of the 25 articles selected, it appears most exist within the observational cross-sectional style, but some deviations occur with breaches into randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and part-cohort studies (Table 3). This lack of explicit study design and combination of research styles provided reasoning for the use of a generic quantitative data assessment. An additional characteristic of these studies is the sample size and variation of sample sizes. It was most common amongst the articles for authors to recruit an approximate 30 participants, however this varied from 6 to 136 participants. There is also consistent variation between participant groups within the studies, as not all articles focused on one educational experience. It is difficult, therefore, to compare statistical results across papers as the literature is discussing different levels of expertise in differing professions. In the investigation of the articles listed in Table 3, it is noted that the majority of articles originate from Western Europe (52%), and 88% of articles originate from countries of Western influence. The remaining articles are from Hong Kong, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Japan. Focusing on location, there is also a consideration to be made as it is common for the same research teams to be conducting all of the eye-gaze metric analysis work for such region. For example, the two articles originating from the Netherlands by [PERSON] et al. [15; 16] were conducted by research teams with common researcher compositions. This is also found in two articles from the UK by [PERSON] et al. [13; 23]. The repetition of the similar research teams is an important consideration when analysing the literature from a region and evaluating for bias, although they were all included in the review due to different study designs with inclusion of different categories of participants.