Application of immersive interaction and 3D visualization technologies in the anatomy curriculum: A network meta-analysis

Introduction Compared with conventional teaching methods, immersive interaction and 3D visualization technologies promote a better understanding of the anatomy, as they allow a steric view of the structures from various angles. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of various immersive interaction and 3D visualization technological interventions in enhancing the anatomical performance of medical students and identifying their key attributes. Methods Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were systematically searched in multiple databases. RCTs comparing immersive interaction and 3D visualization technologies to conventional anatomy teaching were selected. Reviewers independently conducted screening and data extraction. The risk of bias was assessed. Network meta-analysis synthesizes data to enable indirect technology comparisons. Anatomy test score differences and confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity and publication bias were examined. Results A total of 30 RCTs involving 1,705 medical students published between 2006 and 2023 were identified. The trials utilized various immersive interactive technologies, including virtual reality (18 trials), augmented reality (8 trials), 3D technology (3 trials) and mixed reality (1 trial). The control groups involved traditional teaching methods such as textbooks and 2D images. The participants included medical students across different years of study as well as some residents and physical therapy students. The sample sizes in the trials ranged from 12--146. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that virtual reality (MD=9.37, 95% CI 4.40--14.24) and augmented reality (MD=7.77, 95% CI 0.30--15.09) interventions led to significantly higher anatomy test scores than did control conditions did, whereas 3D technology (MD=6.59, 95% CI -4.94--18.90) and mixed reality (4.67, 95% CI -15.28--24.56) interventions did not. There was significant heterogeneity across the studies (I ² =86.1%, P<0.0001), but no evidence of publication bias was detected on the basis of visual inspection of the funnel plots. Conclusion This meta-analysis revealed that immersive interaction and 3D visualization technologies do not significantly improve anatomy learning outcomes compared with traditional methods for medical students. Although small positive effects were observed, heterogeneity was substantial across the analysed trials. Specific systems, simulation sickness, assessments, and learner factors may impact efficacy. Further research should clarify immersive simulation’s role in curricula, validate applications and practices, develop spatial ability evaluations, and determine moderators. Clinical trial number: Not applicable