Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41039526›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2025

Dissection in the 21

Teodora Telecan, Roxana-Denisa Capraș, Gabriela Adriana Filip, Maria Bonea, Carmen-Bianca Crivii

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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

5 authors.

Teodora TelecanDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, "Iuliu Hațieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania.
Roxana-Denisa CaprașDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, "Iuliu Hațieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania. capras.roxana@umfcluj.ro.
Gabriela Adriana FilipDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, "Iuliu Hațieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania.
Maria BoneaDepartment of Department of Neurosciences - Psychiatry and pediatric psychiatry, "Iuliu Hațieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania.
Carmen-Bianca CriviiDepartment of Anatomy and Embryology, "Iuliu Hațieganu" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, 400012, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual dissection tables (VDTs) have emerged as innovative tools in anatomy education, offering interactive, three-dimensional visualization of anatomical structures. However, their performance in conjunction with traditional teaching methods needs to be further analyzed and synthesized. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, student satisfaction and perceived utility of VDTs compared to cadaveric dissection, lectures, and textbook-based learning.

methodsA systematic search of literature identified 22 eligible studies involving students in medicine and related healthcare professions. Studies were analyzed in terms of design, cohort characteristics, educational outcomes, and anatomical content coverage. VDTs evaluated included commercial platforms such as Anatomage, Spectra, VH Dissector, and institutional in-house systems.

resultsVDT use was associated with improved academic performance in 86% of studies, with score increases ranging from 8 to 31% over traditional teaching methods. The greatest improvements were observed in musculoskeletal And neuroanatomy modules. Student satisfaction ranged from 64 to 95%, with the majority citing improved spatial understanding, engagement, And repeatability. However, preference for VDT-exclusive learning remained low, reported by only 2.4-30.2% of students. Most participants favored a hybrid approach combining VDTs with cadaver-based instruction. Despite these benefits, limitations included high implementation costs (up to $200,000 USD), limited access due to device scarcity, lack of tactile feedback, and significant variation in assessment methods and anatomical content. Additionally, no study conducted a direct comparison between various VDT platforms, nor between commercial and in-house systems.

conclusionVDTs represent a valuable complement to traditional anatomy education, enhancing learning outcomes and student engagement across a range of healthcare disciplines. However, their full potential is best realized when used as part of a multimodal curriculum that retains cadaveric dissection. Further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness, and to compare different VDT systems.

Indexed as

AnatomyComputer-Assisted InstructionDissectionEducation, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalCadaverHumansVirtual RealityAnatomageAnatomyMedical educationSpectraUndergraduate studentsVirtual dissection tables

Identifiers

PMID41039526
PMCPMC12492534

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.