ReviewCureus2026
Virtual Reality as an Alternative to Conventional Anatomy Teaching: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional anatomy education, anchored in cadaveric dissection and two-dimensional (2D) resources, faces mounting pressure from reduced curricular hours, educator shortages, and rising costs. Virtual reality (VR) offers an immersive and repeatable alternative; however, its objective efficacy relative to established methods remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of VR-based instruction versus conventional teaching in undergraduate anatomy education, with a particular focus on knowledge acquisition, long-term retention, and learner satisfaction. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to August 2024. Eligibility was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving undergraduate medical students. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Eight RCTs (n ≈ 480 participants) were included. VR interventions consistently matched or exceeded traditional methods in immediate knowledge acquisition, with the most pronounced benefits observed in spatially complex anatomical domains. VR was seen to be non-inferior at five to nine days and eight weeks, and superior at four months (p < 0.001), though the latter finding derives from an add-on design in which both groups received conventional teaching. The non-inferiority of immersive VR versus cadaveric bone models in skeletal anatomy was also seen. Evidence quality was rated moderate overall, with performance bias the primary methodological limitation across studies. VR is an effective educational adjuvant that enhances long-term retention in anatomy education and is supported by emerging biometric evidence of reduced extraneous cognitive load. The evidence supports its integration within a blended learning model rather than as a wholesale replacement for cadaveric dissection. Scalability and cost-effectiveness strengthen the case for its adoption in resource-constrained curricula.
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.