Evidence Hub

Immersive virtual reality and augmented reality in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Paloma García-Robles, Irene Cortés-Pérez, F. Nieto-Escámez, Héctor García-López, Esteban Obrero-Gaitán, M. Osuna-Pérez

Anatomical Sciences Education, 2024

128 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to (1) analyze the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (iVR) and augmented reality (AR) as teaching/learning resources (collectively called XR‐technologies) for gaining anatomy knowledge compared to traditional approaches and (2) gauge students' perceptions of the usefulness of these technologies as learning tools. This meta‐analysis, previously registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023423017), followed PRISMA guidelines. A systematic bibliographical search, without time parameters, was conducted through four databases until June 2023. A meta‐analytic approach investigated knowledge gains and XR's usefulness for learning. Pooled effect sizes were estimated using Cohen's standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A single‐group proportional meta‐analysis was conducted to quantify the percentage of students who considered XR devices useful for their learning. Twenty‐seven experimental studies, reporting data from 2199 health sciences students, were included for analysis. XR‐technologies yielded higher knowledge gains than traditional approaches (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.60), especially when used as supplemental/complementary learning resources (SMD = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.63). Specifically, knowledge performance using XR devices outperformed textbooks and atlases (SMD = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.54) and didactic lectures (SMD = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.42), especially among undergraduate students (SMD = 0.41;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free