Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40047163›Full record

ReviewCroatian medical journal2025

Balancing tradition and innovation: rethinking the dichotomy in anatomy teaching.

Marina Čavka, Zdravko Petanjek, Maura Zanze Beader, Thomas Mathew, Cecilia Brassett, András Dávid Nagy, Ana Hladnik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The FUSION Model: Smart Integration of Tradition and Innovation in Medical Education.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Marina Čavka
Zdravko Petanjek
Maura Zanze Beader
Thomas Mathew
Cecilia Brassett
András Dávid Nagy
Ana HladnikAna Hladnik, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Department of Anatomy and Clinical Anatomy, Šalata 11, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, ana.hladnik@mef.hr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnatomyEducation, MedicalEducation, Medical, UndergraduateCadaverCurriculumDissectionHumansStudents, MedicalTeaching

Identifiers

PMID40047163
PMCPMC11947982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.