Basic Sciences Laboratory, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Peloponnese, Sparta, Greece.
Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Surg Radiol Anat. 2022 Sep;44(9):1215-1218. doi: 10.1007/s00276-022-02998-5. Epub 2022 Aug 11.
Reviews and meta-analyses concerning the effectiveness of extended reality technologies (ERTs) (namely virtual, augmented, and mixed reality-VR, AR, and MR) in anatomy education (AE) have resulted in conflicting outcomes. The current review explores the existing evidence provided by reviews of AE literature regarding the effectiveness of ERTs after their comparison with traditional (either cadaveric or two-dimensional) anatomy teaching modalities and sheds light on the factors associated with the conflicting outcomes.
PubMed, SCOPUS, ERIC, and Cochrane databases were searched for review articles with the purpose to investigate the effectiveness of ERTs in AE.
Nine (four systematic with or without meta-analysis and five non-systematic) reviews were included. A lack of robust evidence provided by those reviews was noted, mainly due to a remarkable confusion in the definition of each ERT, along with confusion when authors referred to traditional AE (TAE) methods.
To clarify to what extent VR, AR, or MR can replace or supplement TAE methods, there is a primary need for addressing issues regarding the definition of each technology and determining which specific TAE methods are used as comparators.
关于扩展现实技术（ERT）（即虚拟现实、增强现实和混合现实-VR、AR 和 MR）在解剖学教育（AE）中的有效性的综述和荟萃分析得出了相互矛盾的结果。本综述探讨了现有文献综述提供的关于 ERT 与传统（尸体或二维）解剖教学模式相比的有效性的证据，并阐明了与相互矛盾的结果相关的因素。
在 PubMed、SCOPUS、ERIC 和 Cochrane 数据库中搜索了旨在调查 ERT 在 AE 中的有效性的综述文章。
共纳入了 9 篇（4 篇系统综述，有或没有荟萃分析，5 篇非系统综述）。这些综述提供的证据缺乏稳健性，主要是由于每个 ERT 的定义非常混乱，以及作者在提到传统 AE（TAE）方法时的混淆。
为了澄清 VR、AR 或 MR 在何种程度上可以替代或补充 TAE 方法，首先需要解决每个技术的定义问题，并确定使用哪些特定的 TAE 方法作为比较。
