Trial reportAnatomical sciences education2025
King Aorta: Narrative anatomy education.
Trial report in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- King Aorta: Narrative anatomy education.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Trial
- Enhancing histology education: Iranian medical students' experience with eHistoLab web-application virtual microscopy.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Investigation of the effect of flipped learning on neuroanatomy education in dentistry faculty students.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Drawing-based instruction enhances practical performance and academic flow in cardiovascular and respiratory anatomy education: a quasi-experimental study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality and educational utility of YouTube videos in teaching human surface anatomy.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Retention of basic sciences knowledge at clinical years: a single institute study from Sudan.BMC medical 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of narrative anatomy education and traditional anatomy education on academic achievement. The study included 64 students who were randomly divided into two groups. The two groups were (n = 32) control (Group 1) and (n = 32) experimental (Group 2). The pretest scores of the two groups were 36.40 ± 12.58 and 35.46 ± 9.18, respectively, and the difference between them was not significant. On this basis, the groups were randomly divided into experimental and control groups. The control group received traditional anatomy instruction, while the experimental group received narrative anatomy instruction in addition to traditional instruction. The posttest scores of the control group were 43.12 ± 10.37, while those of the experimental group were 57.03 ± 14.01, and there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). It is predicted that providing narrative anatomy education in addition to traditional anatomy education will have a positive effect on academic success. The qualitative findings of the study revealed several key findings. Participants in the experimental group reported that narrative education facilitated a deeper understanding and retention of anatomical concepts. They highlighted the use of metaphors and storytelling as helpful in making complex material more relatable and memorable. In addition, students expressed that the narrative approach increased their engagement and motivation, contributing to a more enjoyable learning experience. These qualitative findings highlight the potential of narrative education to complement traditional teaching methods and provide a more holistic and interactive learning experience.
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.