The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence
Abstract
Context Discussions about dissection as a teaching method in gross anatomy are characterised by a lack of objective evidence. Methods A search for such evidence in the literature produced 14 relevant papers. These were reviewed for objective data on the effect of cadaver dissection on cognitive learning outcomes. Results All reviewed studies compared groups of students exposed to different teaching approaches, including active dissection, learning on prosected material, or a combination with computerised teaching aids. Study and course designs varied substantially and student groups compared were not always homogeneous. In all studies, compared learning experiences differed in more than 1 variable, and assessment of anatomical knowledge was not standardised. Discussion It is difficult to interpret and generalise from the results of the reviewed studies. Considering the bias that must be assumed for teachers who develop new course designs and compare these with traditional ones, the review shows a slight advantage for traditional dissection over prosection. Conclusions More sophisticated research designs may be necessary to solve the general problem of the small measurable impact of educational interventions and to come to scientifically sound conclusions about the best way to teach gross anatomy. Such research will have to include sufficient sample sizes, the use of validated assessment instruments, and a discussion of the educational significance of measured differences. More educational research in anatomy is necessary to counterbalance emotional arguments about dissection with scientific evidence. Anatomical knowledge is too important to future doctors to leave its teaching to the educational fashion of the day.
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
Cites
Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data
Downing, S. M. (2003) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x · Cited by 1,434
Different written assessment methods: what can be said about their strengths and weaknesses?
Schuwirth, L. W. T., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01916.x · Cited by 309
Cited by
The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization
Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., & Khurana, A. (2010) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.139 · Cited by 991
The production of anatomical teaching resources using three‐dimensional (3D) printing technology
McMenamin, P. G., Quayle, M. R., McHenry, C. R., & Adams, J. W. (2014) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1475 · Cited by 698
Iwanaga, J., Loukas, M., Dumont, A. S., & Tubbs, R. S. (2021) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.23655 · Cited by 328
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
Nursing students' experiences and perceptions of an anatomy laboratory session: Mixed methods study
Asman, O., Kagan, I., & Itzhaki, M. (2022) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.2106 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Winkelmann, A.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12-12
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-22
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2085870055
- Cited by
- 411
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.78
- 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: Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02625.x
- The paper
- Winkelmann, A. (2007). Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02625.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.