SynthesisBMC medical education2025
Dissection in the 21
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in neuroanatomy education among health professionals - a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Gross anatomy performance associated with human cadaver dissection compared to non-cadaveric methods in nigerian medical students: a comparative cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Printing the future of surgical education: a randomized trial of digital tools in cardiovascular training.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Finite element analysis of minimally invasive osteotomy fixation using oblique hollow headed compression screws and K-wires for hallux valgus osteotomy.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Nursing students' perceptions of image-based anatomical self-assessment in undergraduate education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.