Literature DB >> 34315955

The effectiveness of the use of augmented reality in anatomy education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kerem A Bölek1, Guido De Jong2, Dylan Henssen3,4.   

Abstract

The use of Augmented Reality (AR) in anatomical education has been promoted by numerous authors. Next to financial and ethical advantages, AR has been described to decrease cognitive load while increasing student motivation and engagement. Despite these advantages, the effects of AR on learning outcome varies in different studies and an overview and aggregated outcome on learning anatomy is lacking. Therefore, a meta-analysis on the effect of AR vs. traditional anatomical teaching methods on learning outcome was performed. Systematic database searches were conducted by two independent investigators using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This yielded five papers for meta-analysis totaling 508 participants; 240 participants in the AR-groups and 268 participants in the control groups. (306 females/202 males). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in anatomic test scores between the AR group and the control group (- 0.765 percentage-points (%-points); P = 0.732). Sub analysis on the use of AR vs. the use of traditional 2D teaching methods showed a significant disadvantage when using AR (- 5.685%-points; P = 0.024). Meta-regression analysis showed no significant co-relation between mean difference in test results and spatial abilities (as assessed by the mental rotations test scores). Student motivation and/or engagement could not be included since studies used different assessment tools. This meta-analysis showed that insufficient evidence is present to conclude AR significantly impacts learning outcome and that outcomes are significantly impacted by students' spatial abilities. However, only few papers were suitable for meta-analysis, indicating that there is a need for more well-designed, randomized-controlled trials on AR in anatomy education research.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34315955     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94721-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  21 in total

1.  Personalized augmented reality for anatomy education.

Authors:  Meng Ma; Pascal Fallavollita; Ina Seelbach; Anna Maria Von Der Heide; Ekkehard Euler; Jens Waschke; Nassir Navab
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2015-12-26       Impact factor: 2.414

2.  A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy.

Authors:  Kaissar Yammine; Claudio Violato
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 5.958

3.  Enhancement of Anatomical Education Using Augmented Reality: An Empirical Study of Body Painting.

Authors:  Roghayeh Barmaki; Kevin Yu; Rebecca Pearlman; Richard Shingles; Felix Bork; Greg M Osgood; Nassir Navab
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 5.958

4.  An Augmented Reality magic mirror as additive teaching device for gross anatomy.

Authors:  Daniela Kugelmann; Leonard Stratmann; Nils Nühlen; Felix Bork; Saskia Hoffmann; Golbarg Samarbarksh; Anna Pferschy; Anna Maria von der Heide; Andreas Eimannsberger; Pascal Fallavollita; Nassir Navab; Jens Waschke
Journal:  Ann Anat       Date:  2017-10-07       Impact factor: 2.698

5.  The Effect of Stereoscopic Augmented Reality Visualization on Learning Anatomy and the Modifying Effect of Visual-Spatial Abilities: A Double-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Katerina Bogomolova; Ineke J M van der Ham; Mary E W Dankbaar; Walter W van den Broek; Steven E R Hovius; Jos A van der Hage; Beerend P Hierck
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 5.958

6.  The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy.

Authors:  Christian Moro; Zane Štromberga; Athanasios Raikos; Allan Stirling
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 5.958

Review 7.  Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum.

Authors:  B W Turney
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.891

8.  Neuroanatomy Learning: Augmented Reality vs. Cross-Sections.

Authors:  Dylan J H A Henssen; Loes van den Heuvel; Guido De Jong; Marc A T M Vorstenbosch; Anne-Marie van Cappellen van Walsum; Marianne M Van den Hurk; Jan G M Kooloos; Ronald H M A Bartels
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 5.958

9.  The Benefits of an Augmented Reality Magic Mirror System for Integrated Radiology Teaching in Gross Anatomy.

Authors:  Felix Bork; Leonard Stratmann; Stefan Enssle; Ulrich Eck; Nassir Navab; Jens Waschke; Daniela Kugelmann
Journal:  Anat Sci Educ       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 5.958

10.  Augmented reality in medical education?

Authors:  Carolien Kamphuis; Esther Barsom; Marlies Schijven; Noor Christoph
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2014-09
View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  What Is Significant in Modern Augmented Reality: A Systematic Analysis of Existing Reviews.

Authors:  Athanasios Nikolaidis
Journal:  J Imaging       Date:  2022-05-21

Review 2.  [Virtual and augmented reality in urology].

Authors:  P Sparwasser; M Haack; L Frey; A Haferkamp; H Borgmann
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Augmented Reality for Presenting Real-Time Data During Students' Laboratory Work: Comparing a Head-Mounted Display With a Separate Display.

Authors:  Michael Thees; Kristin Altmeyer; Sebastian Kapp; Eva Rexigel; Fabian Beil; Pascal Klein; Sarah Malone; Roland Brünken; Jochen Kuhn
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-03-07

4.  Augmented reality in interventional radiology education: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  And Yara Particelli Gelmini; Márcio Luís Duarte; Mayara Oliveira da Silva; Josias Bueno Guimarães Junior; Lucas Ribeiro Dos Santos
Journal:  Sao Paulo Med J       Date:  2022 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.838

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.