ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Enhancing Anatomy Education: Snowball Techniques vs. Lecture-Based Learning.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Active learning strategies including small-group methods have gained prominence in medical education, yet their effectiveness in anatomy education somehow remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of snowball technique (ST)- a progressive small-group discussion method-compared to traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) in head and neck anatomy education among medical students. Methods: This pre-test and post-test quasi-experimental study, which included a control group comparison, was conducted over two academic years. A total of 333 undergraduate medical students were assigned to one of two groups using convenience sampling with non-random allocation by existing class sections: the ST group (n = 165) and the LBL group (n = 168). Both groups followed the same course plan, learning objectives, and had the same instructor. Valid and reliable questionnaires were used to collect data on student demographics, satisfaction, and knowledge. Data were analyzed with SPSS software version 22. Results: Students in the ST group (40.62 ± 3.46) reported significantly higher satisfaction than those in the LBL group (29.27 ± 3.39) (P = .001; Cohen's d = 2.89, 95% CI: 2.58-3.20). A paired t-test comparing pre-test and post-test scores revealed significant improvements in both groups, with the ST group demonstrating more pronounced gains (ST within-group d = 2.87, 95% CI: 2.56-3.18; LBL within-group d = 2.45, 95% CI: 2.16-2.74). After three training courses, the final knowledge scores were significantly higher for the ST method compared to the LBL method (P = 0.014; d = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.05-0.49). Conclusion: ST significantly enhanced medical students' satisfaction and knowledge of head and neck anatomy, and they can be effectively used to teach practical courses alongside traditional lectures. Based on the positive outcomes across three sessions, we recommend implementing ST for 3-5 sessions per anatomy course per academic term.
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.