Trial reportAnatomical sciences education2025
A randomized controlled study on medical students learning anatomy through hands-on ultrasound.
Trial report 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.
- A randomized controlled study on medical students learning anatomy through hands-on ultrasound.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Trial
- Clinician Led Point of Care Ultrasound Workshops for Anatomy Instruction: A Pilot Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anatomy education in the undergraduate medical curriculum faces many competing interests, including the increasing demand for ultrasound learning. Instead of being treated as a separate subject, ultrasound can offer a unique lens to visualize anatomy without using cadaveric materials. This study used a randomized controlled design to compare learning with hands-on ultrasound to learning on cadavers. Forty preclinical medical students were randomized to an experimental group or a control group. Both groups attended a session covering structures in the neck, upper limb, and abdomen. The experimental group learned using hands-on ultrasound imaging, while the control group was taught on a dissected cadaver. Participants completed multiple-choice tests on anatomical relationships and structure identification at four time points: presession, post-session, 1-week follow-up, and 1-month follow-up. There was no statistical difference between test scores of the two groups. The post-session average score (54% for cadaver group, 57% for ultrasound group) more than doubled the presession average score (20% for cadaver group, 25% for ultrasound group) (p < 0.001). One-week follow-up and 1-month follow-up scores (40%-44%) significantly decreased from immediate post-session for both groups. Eighteen of the 20 ultrasound-facilitated participants felt more confident operating an ultrasound device compared to before the session. Three quarters of all participants agreed hands-on ultrasound should be part of their anatomy education. This study shows hands-on ultrasound imaging can effectively substitute cadaver-based learning of certain anatomy topics at the introductory level. Ultrasound integration highlights the clinical relevance of anatomy and provides an innovative tool for anatomical education.
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.