ReviewSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2019
Outcomes of the use of plastination in anatomy education: current evidence.
Review in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Students' learning experiences of three-dimensional printed models and plastinated specimens: a qualitative analysis.BMC medical education · 2022Trial
- Use of two virtual dissection tables in a postgraduate oral anatomy course: feedback from the students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A survey of essential anatomy from the perspective of anesthesiology, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and orthopedics resident physicians.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Perceptions of Selected Undergraduate Medical Students in the Philippines on the Effectiveness of the Combined Use of Plastinated and Formalin-preserved Brains in Neuroanatomy Education: A Cross-sectional Study.Acta medica Philippina · 2023Article
- A review of anatomy education during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: Revisiting traditional and modern methods to achieve future innovation.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to evaluate the quantity and quality of current evidence concerning the outcomes of use of plastinated specimens in anatomy education.
methodsWe performed a narrative literature review, searching for papers dealing with the use of plastination in anatomy education. PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, Web of Science and CINAHL complete electronic databases were searched. The following data were extracted: author(s), year of publication, type of study (comparative or not), number of participants, evaluation of statistical significance, educational outcomes and their level according to Kirkpatrick hierarchy.
resultsSix studies were eligible for analysis. Five of them evaluated only students' reactions about plastination and one study also assessed their examinations results. There were four non-comparative and two comparative studies. Only a study evaluated statistical significance (p < 0.05) with higher score of perception in 2nd year undergraduate medical students, who were more familiar with plastination in comparison to 1st year students. Although the use of plastination was accompanied by positive outcomes in the majority of studies (five out of six), this method was not proved superior to traditional cadavers dissection.
conclusionsThe existing evidence about the outcomes of the use of plastination in anatomy education is relatively limited and lacks comparative studies with statistical significant results. Positive students' reactions were generally noted, but further research is needed to clarify if plastination could be of benefit to students' attitude and anatomy knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31203398What 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.