ArticleAnatomical sciences education2026
Metaverse-based virtual reality and spatial learning in cervicofacial anatomy: A curriculum-embedded comparative study in undergraduate medical students.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare a metaverse-based interactive virtual reality (VR) session with a conventional 2D online lecture for learning cervicofacial anatomy. Single-center, curriculum-embedded, nonrandomized comparative study. Fourth-year students attended a Zoom lecture (Conventional, n = 73); sixth-year students completed an interactive VR session using Meta Quest 2 on the Spatial platform (VR, n = 40), delivered in small groups. Immediately after teaching, students completed a 12-item test (9 spatial-relational, 3 factual/topographic). Group differences were analyzed with Welch's t-tests. VR students scored higher overall than Conventional students (66.0% ± 18.3% vs. 43.6% ± 18.0%; mean difference 22.4 percentage points, 95% CI 15.3-29.6; p < 0.0001), driven by spatial items (68.6% ± 20.1% vs. 40.6% ± 18.9%; difference 28.0, 95% CI 20.3-35.7; p < 0.0001). Factual/topographic scores were similar (58.3% ± 25.9% vs. 52.5% ± 30.4%; difference 6.9, 95% CI -3.4 to 17.2; p = 0.19). Optional free-text comments suggested high engagement and perceived spatial benefits; barriers included headset ergonomics and occasional motion sickness. Metaverse-based interactive VR was associated with substantially better spatial learning than a conventional online lecture, with comparable factual recall. Given the nonrandomized design and small-group VR delivery, future studies should use size-matched randomized designs with baseline testing and richer qualitative methods to isolate immersion effects and evaluate generalizability to other anatomical regions.
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.