The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does three‐dimensional anatomy improve student understanding?
Open accessAbstract
We aim to provide an overview of the various digital three‐dimensional visualizations used for learning anatomy and to assess whether these improve medical students' understanding of anatomy compared to traditional learning methods. Furthermore, we evaluate the attitudes of the users of three‐dimensional visualizations. We included articles that compared advanced newer three‐dimensional anatomy visualization methods (i.e., virtual reality, augmented reality, and computer‐based three‐dimensional visualizations) to traditional methods that have been used for a long time (i.e., cadaver and textbooks) with regard to users' understanding of anatomy. Of the 1,148 articles identified, 21 articles reported data on the effectiveness of using three‐dimensional visualization methods compared to two‐dimensional methods. Twelve articles found that three‐dimensional visualization is a significantly more effective learning method compared to traditional methods, whereas nine articles did not find that three‐dimensional visualization was a significantly more effective method. In general, based on these articles, medical students prefer to use three‐dimensional visualizations to learn anatomy. In most of the articles, using three‐dimensional visualization was shown to be a more effective method to gain anatomical knowledge compared to traditional methods. Besides that, students are motivated and interested in using these new visualization methods for learning anatomical structures. Clin. Anat. 32:25–33, 2019. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 · Cited by 12,156
Cited by
Iwanaga, J., Loukas, M., Dumont, A. S., & Tubbs, R. S. (2021) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.23655 · Cited by 328
Wang, J., Li, W., Dun, A., Zhong, N., & Ye, Z. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05403-4 · Cited by 46
Sakowitz, S. M., Inglehart, M. R., Ramaswamy, V., Edwards, S., Shoukri, B., Sachs, S., & Kim-Berman, H. (2020) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-019-00413-w · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Triepels, C. P. R., Smeets, C. F. A., Notten, K. J. B., Kruitwagen, R. F. P. M., Futterer, J. J., Vergeldt, T. F. M., & Van Kuijk, S. M. J.
- Venue
- Clinical Anatomy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-05-31
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-33
- ISSN
- 0897-3806 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2353
- OpenAlex
- W2945447987
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.