ReviewCureus2025
Use of Virtual Technology in Teaching Human Anatomy in Medical Schools: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A comparative analysis of transoral laser microsurgery and transoral robotic surgery for the treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Enhancing the clinical understanding of scaphoid nonunion treatment with a 1,2-ICSRA vascularized graft through 3D digital anatomy: a randomized controlled trial for medical students.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
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
Human anatomy has traditionally been taught through cadaveric dissection and textbooks. Recent advances in three-dimensional (3D) visualization, virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) have introduced interactive approaches that may enhance spatial understanding. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of these virtual technologies compared with conventional anatomy teaching. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 27 randomized controlled trials were identified that compared 3D visualization, immersive VR, AR, mixed reality (MR), and simulator systems with traditional resources such as cadaveric dissection, atlases, and 2D images. Overall, virtual technologies achieved comparable or superior learning outcomes, with the most significant benefits observed in complex spatial topics, including neuroanatomy, cardiac anatomy, and the middle and inner ear. Immersive and interactive 3D tools significantly improved conceptual understanding and examination performance, while MR achieved results equivalent to cadaveric dissection with approximately 40% less teaching time. Students with lower visual-spatial ability benefited particularly from stereoscopic 3D displays. Across all modalities, virtual technologies consistently outperformed traditional methods in subjective outcomes, including motivation, engagement, and perceived spatial clarity. However, the included trials predominantly assessed knowledge-based and subjective learning outcomes and did not evaluate the hands-on practical skills uniquely supported by cadaveric dissection. These findings indicate that advanced virtual technologies represent an effective, efficient, and inclusive complement to traditional anatomy teaching and may play a key role in modernizing medical education. This review involved analysis of published data only and did not require ethical approval.
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.