ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2015
Digital report in an anatomy laboratory: a new method for team-based dissection, reporting, and evaluation.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of virtual reality versus plastinated specimens in musculoskeletal anatomy education for second year medical students.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Improving gross anatomy learning using reciprocal peer teaching.BMC medical education · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDigital report (DR), a new method for students' dissection report, has been introduced to replace the traditional method in the anatomy laboratory.
methodsLaboratory tasks were assigned to groups of five students, and each group was asked to make a DR of their dissection tasks and upload it on the website for the anatomy course developed by the authors' institution. For creating the DR, students were instructed to take photographs of their findings with digital cameras, to mark the orientation and label the structures on the photograph. Students were assessed as a group by evaluating the DR. All the photographs of the DR were saved to construct a database that can be used by the students who will take the anatomy course in the following years. A questionnaire consisting of 14 questions was administered at the end of the anatomy course to evaluate the effectiveness of the DR.
resultsThe results of the student survey showed that the DR was useful for making the students participate more actively in the teamwork for dissection, and for making dissection reports by referring to the DR made by the students from previous years. The DR was also more helpful for the anatomy teacher to assess student learning in the anatomy laboratory than conventional practical examinations and paper-based dissection reports.
conclusionsDR, a paperless report of team-based dissection, is concurrent with the 'digital' age and is in line with the need for a more systematic and objective evaluation of students' dissection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25064605What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.