Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33129310›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2020

Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy education programmes? A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model.

Shi Chen, Jiawei Zhu, Cheng Cheng, Zhouxian Pan, Lingshan Liu, Jianhua Du, Xinhua Shen, Zhen Shen, Huijuan Zhu, Jihai Liu and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Impact of virtual reality training on mastoidectomy performance: a prospective randomised study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

13 authors.

Shi ChenDepartment of Endocrinology, Endocrine Key Laboratory of Ministry of Health, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Chinese Academe of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CAMS & PUMC), Beijing, 100730, China.
Jiawei ZhuEight-year Program of Clinical Medicine, PUMCH, CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China.
Cheng ChengEight-year Program of Clinical Medicine, PUMCH, CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China.
Zhouxian PanEight-year Program of Clinical Medicine, PUMCH, CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China.
Lingshan LiuEight-year Program of Clinical Medicine, PUMCH, CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China.
Jianhua DuEight-year Program of Clinical Medicine, PUMCH, CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China.
Xinhua ShenDepartment of Human Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100005, China.
Zhen ShenThe State Key Laboratory of Management and Control for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CASIA), Beijing, 100190, China.
Huijuan ZhuDepartment of Endocrinology, Endocrine Key Laboratory of Ministry of Health, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Chinese Academe of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CAMS & PUMC), Beijing, 100730, China.
Jihai LiuNational Virtual Simulation Laboratory Education Center of Medical Sciences, PUMCH, CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China.
Hua YangNational Virtual Simulation Laboratory Education Center of Medical Sciences, PUMCH, CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, 100730, China.
Chao MaDepartment of Human Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100005, China.
Hui PanDepartment of Endocrinology, Endocrine Key Laboratory of Ministry of Health, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Chinese Academe of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CAMS & PUMC), Beijing, 100730, China. panhui20111111@163.com.

Funding

Peking Union Medical College No.2014zlgc0141Peking Union Medical College No.2014zlgc0721
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRealistic, portable, and scalable lectures, cadaveric models, 2D atlases and computer simulations are being combined more frequently for teaching anatomy, which result in major increases in user satisfaction. However, although digital simulations may be more portable, interesting, or motivating than traditional teaching tools, whether they are superior in terms of student learning remain unclear. This paper presents a study in which the educational effectiveness of a virtual reality (VR) skull model is compared with that of cadaveric skulls and atlases. The aim of this study was to compare the results of teaching with VR to results of teaching with traditional teaching methods by administering objective questionnaires and perception surveys.

methodsA mixed-methods study with 73 medical students was conducted with three different groups, namely, the VR group (N = 25), cadaver group (N = 25) and atlas group (N = 23). Anatomical structures were taught through an introductory lecture and model-based learning. All students completed the pre- and post-intervention tests, which comprised a theory test and an identification test. The theory test consisted of 18 multiple-choice questions, and the identification test consisted of 25 fill-in-the-blank questions.

resultsThe participants in all three groups had significantly higher total scores on the post-intervention test than on the pre-intervention test; the post-intervention test score in the VR group was not statistically significantly higher than the post-intervention test score of the other groups (VR: 30 [IQR: 22-33.5], cadaver: 26 [IQR: 20-31.5], atlas: 28[IQR: 20-33]; p > 0.05). The participants in the VR and cadaver groups provided more positive feedback on their learning models than the atlas group (VR: 26 [IQR: 19-30], cadaver: 25 [IQR: 19.5-29.5], atlas: 12 [IQR: 9-20]; p < 0.001).

conclusionsThe skull virtual learning resource (VLR) was equally efficient as the cadaver skull and atlas in teaching anatomy structures. Such a model can aid individuals in understanding complex anatomical structures with a higher level of motivation and tolerable adverse effects.

Indexed as

AnatomyStudents, MedicalVirtual RealityComputer SimulationHumansLearningSkullAnatomyMedical educationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID33129310
PMCPMC7603711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.