Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32790885›Full record

SynthesisMedical education2021

Stereoscopic three-dimensional visualisation technology in anatomy learning: A meta-analysis.

Katerina Bogomolova, Beerend P Hierck, Agnes E M Looijen, Johanne N M Pilon, Hein Putter, Bruce Wainman, Steven E R Hovius, Jos A van der Hage

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Evaluating virtual reality as a tool for improving surgical planning in spinal tumors.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Katerina BogomolovaDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4985-1183
Beerend P HierckFaculty of Medicine, Center for Innovation of Medical Education, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Agnes E M LooijenFaculty of Medicine, Institute for Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Rotterdam Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johanne N M PilonFaculty of Medicine, Institute for Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Rotterdam Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hein PutterDepartment of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Faculty of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Bruce WainmanDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7616-961X
Steven E R HoviusDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jos A van der HageDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLErasmus MC · NLLeiden University · NLMcMaster University · CARadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe features that contribute to the apparent effectiveness of three-dimensional visualisation technology [3DVT] in teaching anatomy are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of stereopsis in learning anatomy with 3DVT.

methodsThe review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA Standards. Literature search of English articles was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL EBSCOhost, ERIC EBSCOhost, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases until November 2019. Study selection, data extraction and study appraisal were performed independently by two authors. Articles were assessed for methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. For quantitative analysis, studies were grouped based on relative between-intervention differences in instructional methods and type of control conditions.

resultsA total of 3934 citations were obtained of which 67 underwent a full-text review. Ultimately, 13 randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. When interactive, stereoscopic 3D models were compared to interactive, monoscopic 3D models within a single level of instructional design, for example isolating stereopsis as the only true manipulated element in the experimental design, an effect size [ES] of 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.80; P < .00001) was found. In comparison with 2D images within multiple levels of instructional design, an effect size of 0.45 (95% CI 0.10-0.81; P < .002) was found. Stereopsis had no effect on learning when utilised with non-interactive 3D images (ES = -0.87, 95% CI -2.09-0.35; P = .16).

conclusionStereopsis is an important distinguishing element of 3DVT that has a significant positive effect on acquisition of anatomical knowledge when utilised within an interactive 3D environment. A distinction between stereoscopic and monoscopic 3DVT is essential to make in anatomical education and research.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalLearningDepth PerceptionHumansTechnology

Identifiers

PMID32790885
PMCPMC7984401
OpenAlexW3049148282

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.