ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2026
Real vs virtual dissection: a region-based comparison of medical students' perceptions in a French faculty.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo assess the perception of French medical students regarding the use and place of real (traditional) and virtual dissections in learning Anatomy.
methodsA questionnaire was offered to all students in an optional course semester that combined real and virtual dissection. The questionnaire was also offered to near-peer tutor students (tutors). The questionnaire included closed (quantifiable) questions and open-ended questions, attempting to distinguish the advantages and disadvantages of both methods according to anatomical regions.
resultsTwenty students and 6 tutors filled the questionnaire. All students agreed that the virtual dissection table is useful for learning anatomy, though most (10/20 strongly) disagreed that it could replace traditional cadaveric dissection. Real dissection was considered significantly superior to virtual dissection for cardiac, thoracic, lung, and abdominal anatomy and myology (p < 0.05). A preference trend toward the virtual dissection table was observed for central neuroanatomy, peripheral neuroanatomy, and angiology, although this did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). A positive correlation was found between the ease of tool appropriation and its perceived pedagogical benefit.
conclusionReal and virtual dissections are complementary rather than competitive. This study advocates for a tailored pedagogical model where the choice of modality is guided by the specific anatomical region and its inherent technical constraints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42616174What 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.