The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta‐analysis of the educational effectiveness of three‐dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy
Abstract
Many medical graduates are deficient in anatomy knowledge and perhaps below the standards for safe medical practice. Three‐dimensional visualization technology (3DVT) has been advanced as a promising tool to enhance anatomy knowledge. The purpose of this review is to conduct a meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of 3DVT in teaching and learning anatomy compared to all teaching methods. The primary outcomes were scores of anatomy knowledge tests expressed as factual or spatial knowledge percentage means. Secondary outcomes were perception scores of the learners. Thirty‐six studies met the inclusion criteria including 28 (78%) randomized studies. Based on 2,226 participants including 2,128 from studies with comparison groups, 3DVTs (1) resulted in higher (d = 0.30, 95%CI: 0.02–0.62) factual knowledge, (2) yielded significant better results (d = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.20–0.80) in spatial knowledge acquisition, and (3) produced significant increase in user satisfaction (d = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.12–0.44) and in learners' perception of the effectiveness of the learning tool (d = 0.28, 95%CI = 0.14–0.43). The total mean scores (out of five) and ±SDs for QUESTS's Quality and Strength dimensions were 4.38 (±SD 1.3) and 3.3 (±SD 1.7), respectively. The results have high internal validity, for the improved outcomes of 3DVTs compared to other methods of anatomy teaching. Given that anatomy teaching and learning in the modern medical school appears to be approaching a crisis, 3DVT can be a potential solution to the problem of inadequate anatomy pedagogy. Anat Sci Educ 8: 525–538. © 2014 American Association of Anatomists.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966
How medical students learn spatial anatomy
Garg, A. X., Norman, G., & Sperotable, L. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03649-7 · Cited by 351
Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning?
Garg, A., Norman, G. R., Spero, L., & Maheshwari, P. (1999) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199910000-00049 · Cited by 183 · cited 17×
“Out of seven RCTs (Nicholson et al., 2006; Levinson et al., 2007; Solyar et al., 2008; Keedy et al., 2011; Naaz, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2012) reporting a preintervention test to assess baseline anatomy knowledge, none reported significant differences in mental rotation test scores between comparison gr…”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Zhao, J., Xu, X., Jiang, H., & Ding, Y. (2020) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-020-1994-z · Cited by 445
Trelease, R. B. (2016) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1620 · Cited by 266
Virtual Reality in Medical Students’ Education: Scoping Review
Jiang, H., Vimalesvaran, S., Wang, J. K., Lim, K. B., Mogali, S. R., & Car, L. T. (2022) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/34860 · Cited by 259
Pickering, J. D., & Swinnerton, B. J. (2019) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1810 · Cited by 118
Wang, J., Li, W., Dun, A., Zhong, N., & Ye, Z. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05403-4 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Yammine, K., & Violato, C.
- Venue
- Anatomical Sciences Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-12-31
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 525-538
- ISSN
- 1935-9772 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-9780
- OpenAlex
- W2168201028
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 3.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A meta‐analysis of the educational effectiveness of three‐dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ase.1510
- The paper
- Yammine, K., & Violato, C. (2015). A meta‐analysis of the educational effectiveness of three‐dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1510
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.