ReviewCroatian medical journal2025
Balancing tradition and innovation: rethinking the dichotomy in anatomy teaching.
Review in Croatian medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visualizing Anatomy: Comparing the Pedagogical Impact of Chalkboard Teaching and 3D Models.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- The FUSION Model: Smart Integration of Tradition and Innovation in Medical Education.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2026Article
- Attitudes and Perceptions of Neuroanatomy Lecturers towards the Relevance of Neuroanatomy in the Medical and Physiotherapy Curriculum at Northeast Brazilian Health Profession Schools.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Interactive, Image-Based Modules as a Complement to Prosection-Based Anatomy Laboratories: Multicohort Evaluation.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Interdisciplinary integration in public health emergency education: learning outcomes following a curriculum reform for preventive medicine undergraduates.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- The future of medicine: embracing novelty while sticking to the basics.Croatian medical journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical education has undergone a significant reform in response to evolving health care demands, technological advancements, and emerging research in biomedical and education sciences. The teaching methods in anatomy, a core component of medical education, have notably changed, with traditional cadaveric dissection being increasingly replaced by digital and hybrid alternatives. Despite research indicating no significant difference in short-term knowledge retention between students who engaged in cadaveric dissection and those engaging in alternative methods, dissection uniquely fosters professionalism, empathy, and ethical awareness - traits essential for holistic medical education. This review critically examines the dichotomy between traditional and innovative teaching methods in anatomy education, questioning the assumption that traditional methods hinder progress in modern health care. The findings suggest that changes in medical education are primarily influenced by organizational issues, which frequently results in an incomplete implementation of innovative teaching approaches. The inconsistent application of innovative teaching methods makes it difficult to assess their effectiveness and compare them with traditional methods. Reliable data on their long-term impact can only be generated by randomized controlled trials and longitudinal studies. In the meantime, we need to ensure that current medical students receive high-quality education by incorporating best practices from diverse teaching methods based on valuable insights from experienced educators and current students' learning preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40047163PMC11947982What 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.