ArticlePloS one2026
Integration of the Pirogov interactive anatomy table into anatomy teaching: A comparative study with cadaveric dissection.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research progress on the application of virtual simulation in medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesAnatomy is fundamental in medical education, yet cadaveric dissection faces challenges including limited specimens, high costs, and chemical hazards. Interactive anatomy tables such as the Pirogov system offer innovative alternatives, but evidence from Southeast Asia is limited.
methodsIn a prospective cohort, 188 medical students (139 in Y1 and 49 in Y2) were randomly assigned to the Pirogov table group (Group A, n = 99) or the cadaveric dissection group (Group B, n = 89). Knowledge acquisition was measured using a validated 20-item multiple-choice test before and after the intervention. Student perceptions were evaluated with a 10-item Likert-scale questionnaire covering four domains: knowledge and understanding, spatial visualization and relationships, learning experience and engagement, and effectiveness and practical value. Data were analyzed using paired and independent t-tests and Welch's t-test.
resultsBoth groups showed significant knowledge gains (Group A: 4.3 ± 1.65 to 5.2 ± 1.75, p < 0.001; Group B: 4.2 ± 1.92 to 5.1 ± 1.64, p < 0.001), with no difference between them (p = 0.656). Likert ratings were consistently high across domains, with means from 4.43 to 4.48. Y1 students reported higher ratings than Y2 in learning experience (p = 0.023).
conclusionThe Pirogov table and cadaveric dissection were associated with similar short-term improvements in anatomy knowledge. Students valued the Pirogov table for visualization and engagement. These findings support integrating digital tools with cadaveric dissection to enhance anatomy education, particularly in resource-limited 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.