ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
A scoping review of teaching approaches and learning objectives for anatomical variation in gross anatomy courses across degree programs.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive alignment and assessment validity in a high-stakes dental specialty examination: a Bloom's taxonomy-based analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A scoping review of teaching approaches and learning objectives for anatomical variation in gross anatomy courses across degree programs.Anatomical sciences education · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gross anatomy is often taught and assessed based on a "standard" view of the human body, limiting students' exposure to normal variation, creating a potential curricular gap in the training of future anatomists and health care professionals. This scoping review explores learning objectives and teaching approaches associated with anatomical variation in undergraduate, graduate, and professional courses. Six primary databases and gray literature sources were searched. Records that described either implicit or explicit approaches for teaching anatomical variation in gross anatomy courses at the undergraduate, graduate, or professional level were included. Source selection, data extraction, and analysis followed the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Human donor dissection was the most common approach for implicitly teaching anatomical variation (35.7%, 56/157). Only a few records (25.5%, 40/157) reported examples of explicit teaching approaches, such as student recordings of variation, exposure to multiple donors, and independent research. Reported learning objectives primarily involved awareness, appreciation, and knowledge of anatomical variation. Other learning objectives included the recognition of human diversity, professionalism, collaboration, knowledge through anatomical variation, and navigating anatomical variation. Objectives were mapped to Bloom's Taxonomy, showing that explicit approaches were associated with higher-order learning. This review highlights a gap in the literature regarding the explicit teaching of anatomical variation despite the benefits of explicit approaches for enabling higher-order levels of learning across multiple domains. Recognizing anatomical variation is essential for health care professionals, and this review suggests a need for intentional instructional strategies to better support students in navigating anatomical diversity in educational and clinical contexts.
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.