A meta‐analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies

Abstract

The debate regarding anatomy laboratory teaching approaches is ongoing and controversial. To date, the literature has yielded only speculative conclusions because of general methodological weaknesses and a lack of summative empirical evidence. Through a meta-analysis, this study compared the effectiveness of instructional laboratory approaches used in anatomy education to objectively and more conclusively synthesize the existing literature. Studies published between January 1965 and December 2015 were searched through five databases. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were screened using eligibility criteria to determine their appropriateness for study inclusion. Only numerical data were extracted for analysis. A summary effect size was estimated to determine the effects of laboratory pedagogies on learner performance and perceptions data were compiled to provide additional context. Of the 3,035 records screened, 327 underwent full-text review. Twenty-seven studies, comprising a total of 7,731 participants, were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis detected no effect (standardized mean difference 5 20.03; 95% CI 5 20.16 to 0.10; P 5 0.62) on learner performance. Additionally, a moderator analysis detected no effects (P 0.16) for study design, learner population, intervention length, or specimen type. Across studies, student performance on knowledge examinations was equivalent regardless of being exposed to either dissection or another laboratory instructional strategy. This was true of every comparison investigated (i.e., dissection vs. prosection, dissection vs. digital media, dissection vs. models/modeling, and dissection vs. hybrid). In the context of short-term knowledge gains alone,

Anxiety among Medical Students when Faced with the Practice of Anatomical Dissection

“…The “Smell of the dissecting room” is a negative reaction whose perception as unpleasant increases with time. Students, particularly female students, do not seem to get used to it, with figures similar to those indicated by other studies, at between 60% and 90% (Dinsmore et al, ; Leboulanger, ; Getachew, ; Mompeó Corredera, ; Wilson et al, ). Other studies, however, show considerably lower values, at around 40% (Cahill and Ettarh, ; Arora and Sharma, ; Bati et al, ; Qamar and Osama, ; Dissabandara et al, ).…”

“…As well as reinforcing the theoretical aspects of their education, dissection also offers the student the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the human body. Working on a cadaver is undoubtedly a deeply emotional experience, but also one that allows students to develop the competence and coping skills that will be applied later in their professional careers (Marcos et al, ; Elizondo‐Omaña et al, ; Böckers et al, ; Van Wyk and Rennie, ; Wilson et al, ).…”

“…The study of the organic structures and systems of the human body is fundamental to the training of health professionals (Winkelmann, ; Korf et al, ; Pabst, ; Arráez‐Aybar et al, ; Tseng and Lin, ). Human anatomy is a basic and compulsory subject in the first‐year programs of most Health Sciences university degrees, with anatomical dissection of cadavers having a long tradition in Medicine (Arráez‐Aybar et al, ; Ghosh, ; Estai and Bunt, ; Tseng and Lin, ; Wilson et al, ). It is, broadly speaking, an attractive subject for health sciences students, as it gives them a greater understanding of the human body (Arráez‐Aybar et al, ; Winkelmann, ; Korf et al, ; Bati et al, ; Sandor et al, ).…”

“…However, dissection is still the subject of debate and controversy (Ellis, ; McLachlan et al, ; Winkelmann, ; Böckers et al, ; Wilson et al, ). Around 16% of medical students claimed to have thoughts about diseases and death when faced with a cadaver (McLachlan et al, ; Lempp, ; Böckers et al, ; Plaisant et al, ; Goodwin et al, ).…”

Extended Reality in Medical Education: Driving Adoption through Provider-Centered Design

“…Some schools are resistant to change because of the cost, time, and inherent risks associated with implementing new technologies. Others see no reason to stop using traditional educational approaches that have continually demonstrated efficacy [7]. For example, a meta-analysis that compared different methodologies of anatomical education showed that dissection versus prosection versus the use of digital media did not impact medical students’ academic performance [7].…”