Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 206

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 access
Triepels, Charlotte P. R., Smeets, Carlijn F. A., Notten, Kim J. B., Kruitwagen, Roy F. P. M., Futterer, Jurgen J., Vergeldt, Tineke F. M., Van Kuijk, Sander M. J.·2020·Clinical Anatomy

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ca.23405

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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.