ArticleJMIR medical education2022
Google Images Search Results as a Resource in the Anatomy Laboratory: Rating of Educational Value.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPreclinical medical learners are embedded in technology-rich environments, allowing them rapid access to a large volume of information. The anatomy laboratory is an environment in which faculty can assess the development of professional skills such as information literacy in preclinical medical learners. In the anatomy laboratory, many students use Google Images searches in addition to or in place of other course materials as a resource to locate and identify anatomical structures. However, the most frequent sources as well as the educational quality of these images are unknown.
objectiveThis study was designed to assess the sources and educational value of Google Images search results for commonly searched anatomical structures.
methodsThe top 10 Google Images search results were collected for 39 anatomical structures. Image source websites were recorded and categorized based on the purpose and target audience of the site publishing the image. Educational value was determined through assessment of relevance (is the searched structure depicted in the image?), accuracy (does the image contain errors?), and usefulness (will the image assist a learner in locating the structure on an anatomical donor?). A reliable scoring rubric was developed to assess an image's usefulness.
resultsA total of 390 images were analyzed. Most often, images were sourced from websites targeting health care professionals and health care professions students (38% of images), while Wikipedia was the most frequent single source of image results (62/390 results). Of the 390 total images, 363 (93.1%) depicted the searched structure and were therefore considered relevant. However, only 43.0% (156/363) of relevant images met the threshold to be deemed useful in identifying the searched structure in an anatomical donor. The usefulness of images did not significantly differ across source categories.
conclusionsAnatomy faculty may use these results to develop interventions for gaps in information literacy in preclinical medical learners in the context of image searches in the anatomy laboratory.
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.