ArticleBMC medical education2025
Retention of gross and clinical anatomy knowledge among medical graduates in Sudan: a comparative study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gross anatomy performance associated with human cadaver dissection compared to non-cadaveric methods in nigerian medical students: a comparative cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical preceptorship and small group discussion as educational modalities in modern neurosurgical education: outcomes and perspectives.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Medical students' examinations during the pandemic: Performance and perceptions of anatomy teaching and learning before, during, and after COVID-19 lockdowns.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetaining anatomical knowledge is crucial for safe and effective medical practice, yet many medical graduates struggle to apply this knowledge in clinical settings over time. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the retention of gross anatomy and clinical anatomy knowledge among medical graduates in Sudan.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in a sample of 385 medical graduates from various Sudanese universities, estimated using the Cochrane formula. The participants completed a self-administered questionnaire assessing their knowledge of gross and clinical anatomy, as well as demographic and educational factors. The data were analyzed via descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and ANOVA.
resultsClinical anatomy knowledge was significantly better retained (mean score: 68.39%) than gross anatomy knowledge was (mean score: 45.35%). The retention of gross anatomy is influenced by academic background, with integrated and hybrid learning approaches showing better outcomes than traditional methods do. In contrast, clinical anatomy retention was more consistent across demographic factors but varied by speciality, with emergency medicine, general practice, surgery and radiology showing the highest retention levels.
conclusionClinical anatomy is retained more effectively due to its frequent application in practice, whereas gross anatomy requires greater integration with clinical relevance to enhance retention. The study recommends medical curricula that merge gross and clinical anatomy through active learning strategies and continuous education to improve long-term retention and clinical competency.
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.