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

Kerem A Bölek, Guido De Jong, Dylan Henssen, Kerem A Bölek, Guido De Jong, Dylan Henssen

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.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram for the systematic review detailing the database searches, the number of abstracts screened and the full texts retrieved.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot showing the estimated mean difference in anatomic test scores (%) from the different included studies investigating AR as compared with other forms of anatomical education. AR augmented reality, 95%-CI 95%-confidence interval.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot showing the estimated mean difference in anatomic test scores (%) from the included studies addressing AR vs. 2D forms of anatomical education (i.e., traditional anatomical atlases, radiological data). AR  augmented reality, 95%-CI 95%-confidence Interval.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Bubble plot with fitted meta-regression line of mean difference in anatomic test scores (%) and spatial ability. Included are the studies addressing AR vs. 2D forms of anatomical education (i.e., traditional anatomical atlases, radiological data). AR augmented reality, MRT mental rotation test.

References

    1. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann. Anat. Anat. Anzeiger. 2016;208:151–157. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010.
    1. Gonzales RA, Ferns G, Vorstenbosch MATM, Smith CF. Does spatial awareness training affect anatomy learning in medical students? Anat. Sci. Educ. 2020;13:707–720. doi: 10.1002/ase.1949.
    1. Moro, C., Stromberga, Z. & Birt, J. Clinical Education for the Health Professions: Theory and Practice (eds. Nestel, D., Reedy, G., McKenna, L., & Gough, S.) 1–22 (Springer, 2020).
    1. Kamphuis C, Barsom E, Schijven M, Christoph N. Augmented reality in medical education? Perspect. Med. Educ. 2014;3:300–311. doi: 10.1007/s40037-013-0107-7.
    1. Chytas, D. et al. The role of augmented reality in anatomical education: An overview. Ann. Anat.-Anat. Anzeiger 151463 (2020).
    1. Azuma RT. A survey of augmented reality. Presence-Teleop. Virt. 1997;6:355–385. doi: 10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355.
    1. Ma M, et al. Personalized augmented reality for anatomy education. Clin. Anat. 2016;29:446–453. doi: 10.1002/ca.22675.
    1. Yammine K, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2015;8:525–538. doi: 10.1002/ase.1510.
    1. Moro, C. et al. Virtual and augmented reality enhancements to medical and science student physiology and anatomy test performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anat. Sci. Educ.10.1002/ase.2049.
    1. Kugelmann D, et al. An augmented reality magic mirror as additive teaching device for gross anatomy. Ann. Anat. 2018;215:71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2017.09.011.
    1. Ferrer-Torregrosa J, Torralba J, Jimenez MA, Garcia S, Barcia JM. ARBOOK: Development and assessment of a tool based on augmented reality for anatomy. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2015;24:119–124. doi: 10.1007/s10956-014-9526-4.
    1. Ferrer-Torregrosa, J. et al. Distance learning ects and flipped classroom in the anatomy learning: Comparative study of the use of augmented reality, video and notes. BMC Med. Educ.16. 10.1186/s12909-016-0757-3 (2016).
    1. Bork F, et al. The benefits of an augmented reality magic mirror system for integrated radiology teaching in gross anatomy. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2019;12:585–598. doi: 10.1002/ase.1864.
    1. Barmaki R, et al. Enhancement of anatomical education using augmented reality: An empirical study of body painting. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2019;12:599–609. doi: 10.1002/ase.1858.
    1. Moro, C. et al. Virtual and augmented reality enhancements to medical and science student physiology and anatomy test performance: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Anat. Sci. Educ. (2020).
    1. Uruthiralingam, U. & Rea, P. M. Augmented and virtual reality in anatomical education—A systematic review. Biomed. Visual. 89–101 (2020).
    1. Tang, K. S., Cheng, D. L., Mi, E. & Greenberg, P. B. Augmented reality in medical education: A systematic review. Can. Med. Educ. J.11, e81 (2020).
    1. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev. Esp. Nutr. Hum. Die. 2016;20:148–160. doi: 10.14306/renhyd.20.2.223.
    1. Higgins, J. P. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (Wiley, 2019).
    1. Kirkpatrick, D. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1994).
    1. Steinert, Y. et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Med. Teach.28, 497–526. 10.1080/01421590600902976 (2006).
    1. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010;36:1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br. Med. J. 2003;327:557–560. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Bogomolova K, et al. The effect of stereoscopic augmented reality visualization on learning anatomy and the modifying effect of visual-spatial abilities: A double-center randomized controlled trial. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1002/ase.1941.
    1. Henssen D, et al. Neuroanatomy learning: Augmented reality vs. cross-sections. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2019 doi: 10.1002/ase.1912.
    1. Moro C, Stromberga Z, Raikos A, Stirling A. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2017;10:549–559. doi: 10.1002/ase.1696.
    1. Ceri NG. Effect of non-cadaveric methods on the anatomy education of medical students/Kadavra Disi Yontemlerin Tip Ogrencilerinin Anatomi Egitimine Etkisi. Meandros Med. Dent. J. 2021;22:105–116. doi: 10.4274/meandros.galenos.2021.99815.
    1. Turney BW. Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2007;89:104–107. doi: 10.1308/003588407X168244.
    1. Moro C, et al. Virtual and augmented reality enhancements to medical and science student physiology and anatomy test performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1002/ase.2049.
    1. Zhao J, Xu X, Jiang H, Ding Y. The effectiveness of virtual reality-based technology on anatomy teaching: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Med. Educ. 2020;20:127. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-1994-z.
    1. Habicht JL, Kiessling C, Winkelmann A. Bodies for anatomy education in medical schools: An overview of the sources of cadavers worldwide. Acad. Med. 2018;93:1293–1300. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002227.
    1. Shepard RN, Metzler J. Mental rotation of 3-dimensional objects. Science. 1971;171:701–710. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3972.701.
    1. Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR. Mental rotations, a group test of 3-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept. Motor Skill. 1978;47:599–604. doi: 10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599.
    1. Garg A, Norman GR, Spero L, Maheshwari P. Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Acad. Med. 1999;74:S87–S89. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199910000-00049.
    1. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet. 2001;357:363–364. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03649-7.
    1. Garg AX, Norman GR, Eva KW, Spero L, Sharan S. Is there any real virtue of virtual reality?: The minor role of multiple orientations in learning anatomy from computers. Acad. Med. 2002;77:S97–S99. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200210001-00030.
    1. Levinson AJ, Weaver B, Garside S, McGinn H, Norman GR. Virtual reality and brain anatomy: A randomised trial of e-learning instructional designs. Med. Educ. 2007;41:495–501. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02694.x.
    1. Kucuk S, Kapakin S, Goktas Y. Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: Effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2016;9:411–421. doi: 10.1002/ase.1603.
    1. Di Serio A, Ibanez MB, Kloos CD. Impact of an augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course. Comput. Educ. 2013;68:586–596. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002.
    1. Jara CA, Candelas FA, Puente ST, Torres F. Hands-on experiences of undergraduate students in automatics and robotics using a virtual and remote laboratory. Comput. Educ. 2011;57:2451–2461. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.003.
    1. Liu TY, Chu YL. Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Comput. Educ. 2010;55:630–643. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.023.
    1. Iwata, T., Yamabe, T. & Nakajima, T. Augmented reality go: Extending traditional game play with interactive self-learning support. IEEE Int. Conf. Embed. 105–114. 10.1109/Rtcsa.2011.43 (2011).
    1. Lee K. Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends. 2012;56:13–21. doi: 10.1007/s11528-012-0559-3.
    1. Shen RM, Wang MJ, Pan XY. Increasing interactivity in blended classrooms through a cutting-edge mobile learning system. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2008;39:1073–1086. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00778.x.
    1. Huang YM, Lin YT, Cheng SC. Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Comput. Educ. 2010;54:47–58. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.006.
    1. Allen LK, Eagleson R, de Ribaupierre S. Evaluation of an online three-dimensional interactive resource for undergraduate neuroanatomy education. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2016;9:431–439. doi: 10.1002/ase.1604.
    1. Sommerauer, P. & Müller, O. Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Environments: Investigating Short-Term and Long-Term Effects. (2018).
    1. Bölek, K. A., De Jong, G., Van der Zee, I., Van Cappellen van Walsum, A. M. & Henssen, D. J. H. A. Mixed-methods exploration of students’ motivation in using augmented reality in neuroanatomy education with prosected specimens. (2020) (submitted).
    1. Meguid EMA, Khalil MK. Measuring medical students' motivation to learning anatomy by cadaveric dissection. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2017;10:363–371. doi: 10.1002/ase.1669.
    1. Sung, J., Christensen, H. I. & Grinter, R. E. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction 45–52 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2009).
    1. Mutsuddi, A. U. & Connelly, K. 2012 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth) and Workshops. 33–40.
    1. Stebbins J. The law of diminishing returns. Science. 1944;99:267–271. doi: 10.1126/science.99.2571.267.
    1. Kugelmann D, et al. An augmented reality magic mirror as additive teaching device for gross anatomy. Ann. Anat.-Anat. Anzeiger. 2018;215:71–77. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2017.09.011.
    1. Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—Imprecision. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 1283–1293. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012 (2011).
    1. Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—Inconsistency. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 1294–1302. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017 (2011).
    1. Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—Publication bias. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 1277–1282. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011 (2011).
    1. Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—Indirectness. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 1303–1310. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014 (2011).
    1. Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 1311–1316. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004 (2011).
    1. Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—Study limitations (risk of bias). J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 407–415. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017 (2011).
    1. Balshem, H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 401–406. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 (2011).
    1. Guyatt, G. et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 383–394. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 (2011).
    1. Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J. Clin. Epidemiol.64, 395–400. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012 (2011).
    1. Higgins JP, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren