ArticleMedical science educator2020
Integration of Gross Anatomy Laboratory Sessions into Medical Physics Curriculum.
Article in Medical science educator, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of immersive educational technologies in medical physics and radiation physics.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGross anatomy laboratory sessions with hands-on activities using specimens are essential for teaching anatomy in the medical field. However, they are not seen in medical physics programs. The objective of this pilot study at McGill University was to explore the educational potential of integrated gross anatomy laboratory sessions tailored to the medical physics curriculum.
methodsThe study included 21 medical physics and 11 radiation oncology participants. It was conducted over four 2-h laboratory sessions on pelvic, thoracic, and head and neck anatomy. A radiotherapy applicator device and augmented reality tools were brought in to focus on radiological anatomy and radiation therapy. Students' lab experiences were evaluated through post-laboratory surveys using a mixed methodology. Qualitative data from short-answer questions were analyzed using an inductive coding approach. Quantitative data from Likert scale questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics.
resultsAll participants reported gross anatomy laboratory sessions as a superior method of learning anatomy compared with a single didactic course (mean Likert: 4.38; median = 5; SD = 0.74). Participants also expressed greater comfort with radiological anatomy and the lab environment with gradual exposure from pelvic prosections to full-body cadavers. Lastly, all participants showed enthusiasm for multidisciplinary activities.
conclusionCarefully designed gross anatomy laboratory sessions were very well received by medical physics students as they transition into a clinical role in healthcare. This pilot study serves as a foundation for future studies exploring anatomical education in medical physics. These sessions will continue to be offered at our school and could be adopted also by other medical physics departments in their courses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.