Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39981659›Full record

Trial reportAnatomical sciences education2025

King Aorta: Narrative anatomy education.

Halil Yilmaz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. King Aorta: Narrative anatomy education.Anatomical sciences education · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Halil YilmazDepartment of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8234-4901

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnatomyEducation, Medical, UndergraduateNarrationStudents, MedicalAcademic SuccessAdultCurriculumEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansLearningMaleYoung Adultanatomyexaminationnarrative education

Identifiers

PMID39981659
PMCPMC11909001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.