The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Anatomy 1999–2000: the curriculum, who teaches it and how?
Abstract
Aim To review the impact of Tomorrow's Doctors on anatomical teaching in the UK and Ireland. To establish in particular whether a consensus has emerged on: (a) the duration and format of teaching, and (b) the impact on staffing and on the four main anatomical disciplines of gross anatomy, histology, embryology and neuroanatomy. Method and Results A postal survey of 28 anatomy departments was carried out. This yielded a response rate of 75%. Twelve departments used systems‐based curricula, five used problem‐based curricula, and four used a traditional regional format. There were variable levels of integration between the anatomical disciplines and subjects outside anatomy. Dissection taught over the first 2 years was retained in 76% of the courses, frequently supplemented with demonstrations, with an average of 2 hours of practical work for every hour of lecture. Staff/student ratios varied with the type of curriculum: dissection room teaching and problem‐based curricula were associated with higher numbers of either full or part‐time clinically qualified teachers. Teaching was supported by a high proportion of part‐time clinically qualified staff, giving an overall average staff/student ratio of 19·8 in a dissection class. Conclusions There is considerable variation in duration and staffing of anatomy teaching, according to the type of curriculum. This suggests there may well be substantial variation in the level, content and depth of anatomical curricula across the country, and that this should be quantified.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future
McLachlan, J. C., & Patten, D. (2006) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02401.x · Cited by 462
Anatomy education for the YouTube generation
Barry, D. S., Marzouk, F., Chulak‐Oglu, K., Bennett, D., Tierney, P., & O'Keeffe, G. W. (2016) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1550 · Cited by 313
Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools
Craig, S., Tait, N., Boers, D., & McAndrew, D. (2010) · ANZ Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05241.x · Cited by 296
The relative effectiveness of computer‐based and traditional resources for education in anatomy
Khot, Z., Quinlan, K., Norman, G. R., & Wainman, B. (2013) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1355 · Cited by 274
Trelease, R. B. (2016) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1620 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Heylings, D. J. A.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 702-710
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2018961184
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Anatomy 1999–2000: the curriculum, who teaches it and how? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01272.x
- The paper
- Heylings, D. J. A. (2002). Anatomy 1999–2000: the curriculum, who teaches it and how? Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01272.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.