ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
Ultrasound in anatomy education: Faculty perspectives from a global survey.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating AI-powered instruction on Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) teaching outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Ultrasound in anatomy education: Faculty perspectives from a global survey.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This exploratory study investigates anatomy faculty perceptions on the incorporation of ultrasound (US) in anatomy education, focusing on spatial understanding (SU) and cognitive load (CL) implications. An online survey was administered anonymously to members of the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists. The survey gathered quantitative and qualitative data, utilizing Likert scale- and open-ended questions. Quantitative results indicated a positive faculty disposition toward US as an educational tool, noting its potential to enhance SU by visualizing anatomical structures dynamically. However, concerns about increased CL due to technical and operational challenges were also highlighted. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed three primary themes: US as a means for improved anatomical visualization, its role in reducing CL when appropriately integrated, and the logistical challenges associated with incorporating it into curricula. These findings align with prior research on student perspectives of US but provide a novel contribution by capturing the views of anatomy faculty. By offering faculty-driven insights, this study extends the literature on US in anatomy education and highlights the critical need for structured faculty training programs. The study underscores the importance of developing targeted US training for faculty to minimize CL impacts on both educators and students, optimizing the technology's educational potential. These insights contribute to a broader understanding of US in anatomy education and emphasize the need for institutional support, standardized curricula, and cost-effective implementation strategies. This research informs evidence-based curriculum development and practical integration strategies, aiding anatomy educators in making informed decisions about incorporating US into their teaching practices.
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.