Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Advancing anatomical education: comparative effectiveness of mixed reality and 3D printing technologies.
Trial report in BMC medical 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCadaveric dissection has traditionally been the cornerstone of anatomical education, yet limited access to cadaveric material necessitates alternative teaching methods. Mixed Reality (MR) and 3D printing offer immersive, interactive experiences that may enhance the understanding of complex anatomical structures.
methods236 medical students were randomly assigned to three groups: MR, 3D printing, and control. Anonymized computed tomography angiography (CTA) data were used to generate 3D-printed models and holographic reconstructions. Students participated in structured anatomy sessions and completed an post-test assessment, followed by a second evaluation several weeks later.
resultsThe MR group achieved the highest mean test scores, with a statistically significant difference from the control group (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the 3D printing and control groups. Most students rated both MR and 3D printing positively, with MR receiving the highest evaluations. However, follow-up assessments revealed no significant differences in delayed knowledge retention.
conclusionsMR and 3D printing are effective adjuncts to traditional anatomical education. MR demonstrated superior short-term knowledge acquisition, but delayed retention was comparable across groups. Further research should explore the impact of repeated exposure to these technologies in medical 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.