ArticleAnatomical sciences education2026
Augmented reality for teaching undergraduate human anatomy: An educators' perspective.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of Australian educators on using augmented reality (AR) as a method for learning human anatomy in the undergraduate health sciences. This will determine the current value of AR and guide future research and development. This prospective qualitative study used a mixed-methods approach to gain detailed feedback from 10 anatomy educators at Curtin University. Educators interacted with mobile AR using an iPad and the Complete Anatomy application. A survey measured perceived usability through the System Usability Scale (SUS) and used Likert-scale responses and short-answer questions to determine educators' perspectives of AR. The SUS measured a mean usability score of 58.25, SD ± 15.41 (95% CI: 47.22, 69.28), translating to a 'D' grade. Educators demonstrated positive perspectives of new technology but found that AR presented more challenges than benefits. Recommendations focused on overcoming hardware difficulties and ensuring in-depth educational content with reference to the cadaveric study. Mobile AR does not currently hold substantial value for anatomy education; however, the benefits of AR may be optimized using a head-mounted display. Future research must consult all potential stakeholders to critically define how AR will provide measurable value for anatomy education.
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.