ArticleBMC medical education2025
Comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical model.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies and interventions to promote organ donation and transplantation among university students: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Visualizing Anatomy: Comparing the Pedagogical Impact of Chalkboard Teaching and 3D Models.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Research progress on the application of virtual simulation in medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional anatomy education relies on lectures, visual aids, and cadaver dissections. However, limited cadaver availability often necessitates the use of plastic models to aid 3D understanding. Virtual reality (VR) presents an immersive alternative that may enhance spatial learning without requiring cadavers. Despite its potential, few studies have directly compared VR with traditional methods in anatomy education.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the learning outcomes of first-year anatomy students using either VR or plastic 3D models for anatomical instruction.
methodsFirst-year anatomy students were divided into two groups: one using VR and the other using plastic models. They participated in weekly anatomy sessions consisting of 2-hour lectures followed by 2-hour laboratory sessions covering various anatomical systems. After the lectures, students engaged in laboratory activities using either plastic models or immersive virtual reality (iVR) for 3D spatial anatomy learning, with iVR participants capturing screenshots of assigned targets for verification. Each session concluded with an online image-based multiple-choice quiz to assess anatomical identification and understanding.
resultsStudents from the Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences (NHS) and the Department of Medical Laboratory Science and Biotechnology (MLSB) at Taipei Medical University (TMU) participated in the study. Students in the VR group initially struggled due to the time required to adapt to the system, which was reflected in their significantly lower scores in week 2 for both NHS (80.35 ± 2.04 vs. 88.82 ± 1.64, p < 0.0019) and MLSB (72.23 ± 1.81 vs. 88.55 ± 1.67, p < 0.0001). However, in subsequent weeks, while iVR scores were slightly lower, the differences were not statistically significant, and by the later weeks, there was no significant difference in quiz performance between the two groups, with comparable scores observed in weeks 8 and 10 for NHS.
conclusionsVR provides a viable alternative to plastic models for anatomy education. Although students require an adaptation period, their performance eventually matches that of students using traditional plastic models. This study is the first to quantitatively compare VR and plastic models in anatomy instruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.