Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41766932›Full record

ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026

Cadaver Dissections in Medical School Based on Functional Neuroanatomy Improve Results: A Double Blind Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

Jens Ternerot, Patrick Vigren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jens TernerotDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Lnköping, Sweden.
Patrick VigrenDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Lnköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0799-2148

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cadaver dissection is a well-established method to teach neuroanatomy in medical school. However, the outcome on functional anatomical understanding and student experience has not been studied. The aim of this study was to compare traditional topographically based brain cadaver dissections with dissections based on functional white matter dissections with regard to functional-anatomical knowledge and student experience. Methods: Pre-clinical medical students were randomly assigned to a control group with traditional two dimensional topographical cadaver dissections and to study groups with functionally based white matter dissections. The control dissections were performed as formerly planned by non-clinical anatomy tutors and the study dissections were planned and overseen by an experienced neurosurgeon. After the dissections, the students underwent a web-based questionnaire including four questions on topographical and functional neuroanatomy, and three questions on experience and self-evaluation of neuroanatomical knowledge. Results: A total of 130 students were included, (n=33 in the control group and n=97 in the study group). Students in the study group scored higher on knowledge-based multiple-choice questions regarding speech and language, motor functions and the ventricular system; however, statistical significance was observed only for speech and language. They also scored higher in self-perceived knowledge after the dissections, although not statistically significant. Discussion: Including functional and clinical aspects in brain cadaver improves anatomy teaching in pre-clinical medical students. The authors argue that it is of importance to integrate clinicians in the pre-clinical anatomy teaching.

Indexed as

anatomycadaver dissectionsmedical schoolneuroanatomypreclinical education

Identifiers

PMID41766932
PMCPMC12949536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.