Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 411

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

Winkelmann, Andreas·2007·Medical Education

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02625.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 411

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.