ReviewAnatomical sciences education2026
There is a method to the madness, and a madness to the method: A beginner's guide to qualitative research.
Review in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of examination performance and test anxiety during bell-paced and self-paced gross anatomy laboratory examinations.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Trial
- Essential embryology for the Canadian pathologists' assistant.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- A practical guide to using diary methods in qualitative research.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Review
- Risky or rigorous? Developing trustworthiness criteria for AI-supported qualitative data analysis.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- More than words: The value of qualitative research for advancing educational practice.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- "The science of teaching": Understanding anatomy demonstrators' pedagogical content knowledge.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Qualitative research is increasingly engaged in anatomical sciences education research. However, many in the discipline are not formally trained in qualitative methodology and-like other research methods-qualitative methods are continually developed and enhanced. Indeed, qualitative approaches appear to be entering a new era of acceptability and rigor. As such, those researching, reviewing, and practicing in the anatomical sciences require a strong basis of understanding qualitative methodologies to be able to accurately execute, appraise, and apply qualitative work. This article aims to review core tenets of qualitative research, through the lens of anatomical sciences education by first focusing on: principles underpinning qualitative methods and aspects of philosophy and rigor. The article then transitions to how these principles can be used to understand phenomena through the introduction of common qualitative methodologies, with a special focus on framework analysis as an approachable and widely used method. The authors of this work have, combined, decades of qualitative research experience in the anatomy and health sciences, as well as knowledge of positivist research frameworks. The author's varied paradigmatic experiences provide an opportunity to present qualitative research in a way that is approachable to those who may come from a novice, and often positivist, perspective. The depth of experience also allows for exploration of qualitative research current and future "gray areas." Ultimately, this discursive article covers content that will be supportive to those across the spectrum of experience with qualitative research, and which is applicable to multiple papers in this special issue.
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.