Trial reportSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2026
Effects of multisensory tactile‑auditory integration teaching on systematic anatomy learning in visually impaired medical students.
Trial report 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMedical education for visually impaired students faces persistent barriers due to the inherent visual dependency of anatomy and the prevalence of unimodal instructional paradigms. This study aimed to design and evaluate a novel tactile-auditory integrated teaching strategy for systematic anatomy, comparing its effectiveness against traditional Braille-based instruction in enhancing academic performance and learning attitudes among visually impaired medical students.
methodsA 16-week cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted with 60 visually impaired undergraduate students structured across 4 class clusters. The experimental group ([Formula: see text]) received a multisensory adaptive intervention utilizing high-precision silicone models equipped with an embedded micro-sensor audio-feedback system. The control group ([Formula: see text]) received conventional Braille-based instruction with identical physical models lacking electronic feedback. Primary outcomes were evaluated on the Intention-to-Treat (ITT) population using Linear Mixed-Effects Models (LMM) with multiple imputation and Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) adjustments ([Formula: see text]).
resultsFollowing the intervention, the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher scores than the control group in theoretical examinations ([Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), practical structure identification assessments ([Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]), and overall composite scores ([Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). Formative process assessment scores showed no statistically significant difference between groups ([Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]). Questionnaire evaluations revealed superior outcomes in the experimental group across self-directed learning engagement, multimodal learning adaptability, clinical problem-solving skills, and anatomical tactile recognition ability (all [Formula: see text]).
conclusionThe tactile-auditory integrated training system significantly improves objective summative knowledge acquisition and subjective learning experiences in visually impaired medical students. This approach provides a scalable, cost-constrained, and replicable pedagogical model for inclusive anatomy education, though future multi-center trials incorporating granular visual function stratification and advanced haptic technologies are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848198What 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.