ArticleAnatomical sciences education2022
No cuts, no buts: Satisfaction of first-year medical students with a hybrid prosection-based model for learning gross anatomy during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interactive, Image-Based Modules as a Complement to Prosection-Based Anatomy Laboratories: Multicohort Evaluation.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- No cuts, no buts: Satisfaction of first-year medical students with a hybrid prosection-based model for learning gross anatomy during the Covid-19 pandemic.Anatomical sciences education · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Few realized the extent of disruption that the Covid-19 global pandemic would impose upon higher anatomical education. While many institutions were obliged to adopt a fully-remote online model, the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine strove to develop a curriculum that would allow medical students to receive an in-person anatomy education. A hybrid model that emphasized learning from prosected cadavers and self-study stations was implemented, with the remainder of the students' time directed toward studying at home. Through an anonymous survey aimed at gleaning student satisfaction, this study demonstrates that this hybrid prosection-based anatomy course aligned with student preferences both assuming no health risk (64.6% agreed) and given the current risk of contracting Covid-19 (78.5% agreed). Generally, students felt that their education was equal to that of previous years (Likert scale = 3.24 ± 1.05), fostered an appreciation for anatomy (4.56 ± 0.59), promoted teamwork (4.13 ± 0.85), and prepared them for practical examinations (4.18 ± 0.74). Linear mixed-effect models demonstrated that specific differences in results could be attributed to students' preconceived preferences toward student-led dissections and to past medical training. Importantly, most students "disagree" (1.97 ± 1.00) that they were concerned about the risk of exposure to Covid-19 during in-person anatomy laboratory sessions. Areas requiring improvement were identified by the model, including the provision of access to the cadavers outside of the regularly scheduled laboratory times (3.89 ± 1.08). These findings should be utilized when designing future gross anatomy courses in response to the "new normal".
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.