Table 2.
Specifications of the included studies and characteristics of the included participants.
| Study | Anatomy learning task | Type of AR feature | Comparison | Subjects in each group (n) | Mean age (years) (± SD) | Gender (F/M) | Study (MED/ BMS) |
Mean test-score in the different groups (%) (± SD) | Mean difference in test-scores (percentage points) | Lower bound – Upper bound (percentage points) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moro et al. 2017 | Studying anatomy of the bones of the skull | (1) Tablet-based AR application presenting 3D model of the bones of the skull |
(2) Headset-based VR application (3) Tablet-based non-AR three dimensional model |
(1) 17 (2) 20 (3) 22 |
(1) 19.5 ± 2.3 (2) 20.2 ± 3.5 (3) 22.2 ± 8.0 |
(1) 7/10 (2) 12/8 (3) 12/10 |
N/A |
(1) 62.5 ± 17.1* (2) 64.5 ± 18.5* (3) 66.5 ± 18.5* |
(1–2) − 2.0% (1–3) − 4.0% |
(1–2) − 13.5 to 9.5% (1–3) − 15.1 to 7.2% |
| Barmaki et al. 2019 | Body painting of musculoskeletal anatomy of the upper and lower limb | (1) REFLECT; virtual mirror with augmented anatomical over-projection | (2) No REFLECT; virtual mirror without augmented anatomical over-projection |
(1) 164 (2) 124 |
Total: 19.8 ± 2.0 | Total: 178/110 | N/A |
(1) 43.0 ± 28.4 (2) 39.2 ± 28.8 |
(1–2) 3.8% | (1–2) − 2.9 to 10.5% |
| Bork et al. 2019 | Studying gross anatomy of body parts (pelvis, shoulder, chest, abdomen, and extremities) | (1) MagicMirror; virtual mirror with augmented anatomical over-projection |
(2) Anatomage; a virtual dissection table (3) Traditional, 2D anatomical atlases |
(1) 24 (2) 24 (3) 24 |
Total: 21.4 ± 3.4 | Total: 49/23 | N/A |
(1) 56.0 ± 14.1 (2) 55.2 ± 11.0 (3) 59.1 ± 16.9 |
(1–2) 0.8% (1–3) − 3.1% |
(1–2) − 6.3 to 8.0% (1–3) − 11.9 to 5.7% |
| Henssen et al. 2019 | Studying neuroanatomy | (1) GreyMapp; tablet-based AR application presenting a 3D model of the human brain | (2) Cross-sections of the human brain |
(1) 15 (2) 16 |
(1) 19.3 ± 2.3 (2) 19.1 ± 0.8 |
(1) 6/9 (2) 6/10 |
(1) 13/2 (2) 10/6 |
(1) 50.0 ± 10.2 (2) 60.6 ± 12.4 |
(1–2) − 10.6% | (1–2) − 18.6 to − 2.6% |
| Bogomolova et al. 2020 | Studying lower limb anatomy | (1) Headset-based AR application |
(2) Non-AR 3D desktop model (3) Traditional, 2D anatomical atlases |
(1) 20 (2) 20 (3) 18 |
(1) 18.5 ± 0.8 (2) 18.7 ± 1.0 (3) 18.7 ± 0.7 |
(1) 12/8 (2) 13/6 (3) 11/7 |
(1) 17/3 (2) 16/4 (3) 14/4 |
(1) 47.8 ± 9.8 (2) 38.5 ± 14.3 (3) 50.9 ± 13.8 |
(1–2) 9.3% (1–3) − 3.1% |
(1–2) 1.7–16.9% (1–3) − 10.8 to 4.6% |
AR augmented reality, BMS biomedical sciences, F female, M male, MED medicine, N/A not available, VR virtual reality.
*Standard deviations were derived from Boxplot analysis.