ArticleBMC medical education2026
Haptic and cognitive trade-offs of virtual reality-supported anatomy education: a retrospective multimethod cohort comparison.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmersive virtual reality (VR) can facilitate three-dimensional anatomy learning but may not reproduce the haptic information, representational variability, and retrieval demands encountered in physical anatomy learning. We examined performance beyond immediate recognition of standardized representations.
methodsWe integrated data from three routine educational-assessment modules at one medical school, with the comparative analysis framework specified post hoc. Forty first-year students without previous cadaver-dissection experience received pure-VR or cadaver-based instruction in two intact classes (20 per condition). The three focal outcomes, designated post hoc for the integrated analysis, were peak force during a standardized cadaver task, accuracy for noncanonical CT/MRI cases, and the condition-by-time interaction in knowledge scores from 30 min to four weeks. Estimates are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and effect sizes.
resultsThe pure-VR condition showed greater peak force during transfer to cadaveric tissue (8.74 ± 2.31 vs. 4.52 ± 1.68 N; mean difference [MD], 4.22 N; 95% CI, 2.92-5.52; Cohen's d = 2.09) and less controlled secondary performance. The standardized-model estimate included no difference (0.91 ± 0.06 vs. 0.87 ± 0.08; p = .082), whereas noncanonical-case accuracy was lower in the pure-VR condition (0.52 ± 0.14 vs. 0.71 ± 0.11; MD, - 0.19; 95% CI, - 0.27 to - 0.11). Immediate scores were compatible with no difference; at four weeks, the pure-VR condition scored lower (11.75 ± 4.63 vs. 17.20 ± 4.05; MD, - 5.45; 95% CI, - 8.24 to - 2.66). The reported condition-by-time interaction was F(2, 76) = 15.38, p < .001, partial η² = 0.29.
conclusionsPure-VR instruction showed no clear deficit in immediate learning or standardized recognition, but was associated with less controlled tissue handling, lower transfer to noncanonical images, and weaker delayed retrieval. Because condition was confounded with intact class, the sample was small, and the modules were analyzed post hoc, the findings are exploratory and noncausal. VR may be most useful within a competency-aligned blended curriculum.
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.