Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39192274›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

"Visualization matters" - stereoscopic visualization of 3D graphic neuroanatomic models through AnaVu enhances basic recall and radiologic anatomy learning when compared with monoscopy.

Doris George Yohannan, Aswathy Maria Oommen, Amruth S Kumar, S Devanand, Minha Resivi Ut, Navya Sajan, Neha Elizabeth Thomas, Nasreen Anzer, Nithin Kadakampallil Raju, Bejoy Thomas and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

16 authors.

Doris George YohannanDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India. dorisgeorge54@gmail.com.
Aswathy Maria OommenDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Amruth S KumarDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
S DevanandDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Minha Resivi UtDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Navya SajanDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Neha Elizabeth ThomasDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Nasreen AnzerDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Nithin Kadakampallil RajuDepartment of Anatomy, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, India.
Bejoy ThomasDepartment of Imaging Sciences and Interventional Radiology, Sree Chithra Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Jayadevan Enakshy RajanDepartment of Imaging Sciences and Interventional Radiology, Sree Chithra Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Umesan Kannanvilakom GovindapillaiDepartment of Anatomy, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Pawan HarishMuni Animation, New Delhi, India.
Tirur Raman KapilamoorthyDepartment of Imaging Sciences and Interventional Radiology, Sree Chithra Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Chandrasekharan KesavadasDepartment of Imaging Sciences and Interventional Radiology, Sree Chithra Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Jayanthi SivaswamyInternational Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, India.

Funding

Science and Engineering Research Board Grant No. IR/SB/EF/03/2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe authors had previously developed AnaVu, a low-resource 3D visualization tool for stereoscopic/monoscopic projection of 3D models generated from pre-segmented MRI neuroimaging data. However, its utility in neuroanatomical education compared to conventional methods (specifically whether the stereoscopic or monoscopic mode is more effective) is still unclear.

methodsA three-limb randomized controlled trial was designed. A sample (n = 152) from the 2022 cohort of MBBS students at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMCT), was randomly selected from those who gave informed consent. After a one-hour introductory lecture on brainstem anatomy and a dissection session, students were randomized to three groups (S - Stereo; M - Mono and C - Control). S was given a 20-min demonstration on the brainstem lesson module in AnaVu in stereoscopic mode. M was given the same demonstration, but in monoscopic mode. The C group was taught using white-board drawn diagrams. Pre-intervention and post-intervention tests for four domains (basic recall, analytical, radiological anatomy and diagram-based questions) were conducted before and after the intervention. Cognitive loads were measured using a pre-validated tool. The groups were then swapped -S→ M, M →S and C→S, and they were asked to compare the modes.

resultsFor basic recall questions, there was a statistically significant increase in the pre/post-intervention score difference of the S group when compared to the M group [p = 0.03; post hoc analysis, Bonferroni corrections applied] and the C group [p = 0.001; ANOVA test; post hoc analysis, Bonferroni corrections applied]. For radiological anatomy questions, the difference was significantly higher for S compared to C [p < 0.001; ANOVA test; post hoc analysis, Bonferroni corrections applied]. Cognitive load scores showed increased mean germane load for S (33.28 ± 5.35) and M (32.80 ± 7.91) compared with C (28.18 ± 8.17). Subjective feedbacks showed general advantage for S and M compared to C. Out of the S and M swap cohorts, 79/102 preferred S, 13/102 preferred M, and 6/102 preferred both.

conclusionsAnaVu tool seems to be effective for learning neuroanatomy. The specific advantage seen when taught with stereoscopy in basic recall and radiological anatomy learning shows the importance of how visualization mode influences neuroanatomy learning. Since both S and M are preferred in subjective feedbacks, these results have implications in choosing methods (stereoscopic - needs 3D projectors; monoscopic - needs web based or hand-held devices) to scale AnaVu for anatomy teaching in medical colleges in India. Since stereoscopic projection is technically novel and cost considerations are slightly higher compared to monoscopic projection, the specific advantages and disadvantages of each are relevant in the Indian medical education scenario.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateImaging, Three-DimensionalMental RecallNeuroanatomyEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleModels, AnatomicRandom AllocationStudents, MedicalYoung AdultAnatomical visualizationAnatomy educationComputer assisted learningMonoscopic projectionNeuroanatomySpatial learningStereoscopic projectionTechnology enhanced learning

Identifiers

PMID39192274
PMCPMC11348555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.