Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29724217›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2018

Tools and resources for neuroanatomy education: a systematic review.

M Arantes, J Arantes, M A Ferreira

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Neurophobia in health profession students and practitioners: a systematic review and synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM).Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. MacGyver Neuroscience: Cost-Effective Laboratory Exercises for Pre-Health Education.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M ArantesDepartment of Biomedicine, Unit of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Al. Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200 - 319, Porto, Portugal. mavildearantes@hotmail.com.
J ArantesPsychology School, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal.
M A FerreiraDepartment of Public Health, Forensic Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Al. Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200 - 319, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this review was to identify studies exploring neuroanatomy teaching tools and their impact in learning, as a basis towards the implementation of a neuroanatomy program in the context of a curricular reform in medical education.

methodsComputer-assisted searches were conducted through March 2017 in the PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Current Contents Connect, KCI and Scielo Citation Index databases. Four sets of keywords were used, combining "neuroanatomy" with "education", "teaching", "learning" and "student*". Studies were reviewed independently by two readers, and data collected were confirmed by a third reader.

resultsOf the 214 studies identified, 29 studies reported data on the impact of using specific neuroanatomy teaching tools. Most of them (83%) were published in the last 8 years and were conducted in the United States of America (65.52%). Regarding the participants, medical students were the most studied sample (37.93%) and the majority of the studies (65.52%) had less than 100 participants. Approximately half of the studies included in this review used digital teaching tools (e.g., 3D computer neuroanatomy models), whereas the remaining used non-digital learning tools (e.g., 3D physical models).

conclusionsOur work highlight the progressive interest in the study of neuroanatomy teaching tools over the last years, as evidenced from the number of publications and highlight the need to consider new tools, coping with technological development in medical education.

Indexed as

LearningTeaching MaterialsHumansNeuroanatomyStudents, MedicalEducationLearningNeuroanatomyStudentTeaching

Identifiers

PMID29724217
PMCPMC5934868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.