SynthesisBMC medical education2026
Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in neuroanatomy education among health professionals - a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuroanatomy is widely recognised as one of the most challenging subjects in health professions education due to its complex three-dimensional structures and spatial relationships. Technology-enhanced learning has increasingly been incorporated into neuroanatomy education to facilitate learning. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning interventions in teaching practical neuroanatomy skills.
methodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomised controlled trials published between 2013 -2023 that evaluated technology-enhanced learning interventions in neuroanatomy education were included using a Rayann software. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria and were analysed using the modified Kirkpatrick model to assess educational outcomes.
resultsLearner's motivation and engagement (Kirkpatrick Level 1) were consistently high. for virtual reality,3D visualisation, and stereoscopic learning modules, with students reporting increased satisfaction, confidence, and perceived understanding. Augmented reality inventions demonstrated more valuable responses, often influenced by design, quality, and implementation. Improvements in objective learning outcomes (Kirkpatrick Level 2) were reported in several studies, particularly those employing 3D visualisation and virtual reality tools. However, these findings were not consistent across all interventions. Technology enhanced learning appeared particularly beneficial for supporting cognitive engagement and visuospatial understanding of complex neuroanatomical concepts. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across intervention types, pedagogical approaches, and outcome measures. Few studies evaluated behavioural changes (Kirkpatrick Level 3) or long term educational impact (Kirkpatrick level 4).
conclusionTechnology -enhanced learning, particularly 3D visualisation and virtual reality, shows promise as a complementary approach to neuroanatomy education by enhancing learner's engagement, motivation, confidence, and spatial understanding. While improvement in object knowledge, outcomes were reported in several studies, evidence of superiority over conventional teaching approaches remains inconsistent. The evidence base was restricted to randomised controlled trials and was driven from undergraduate medical student populations, which may limit the generalisability of the findings. Further high -quality longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate behavioural change, long-term knowledge retention, and educational impact.
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.