Are extended reality technologies (ERTs) more effective than traditional anatomy education methods?

Purpose 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. Methods PubMed, SCOPUS, ERIC, and Cochrane databases were searched for review articles with the purpose to investigate the effectiveness of ERTs in AE. Results 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. Conclusions 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.