Efficacy of plastinated specimens in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 5.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Julian Shu Kai Goh, Ramya Chandrasekaran, Srinivasa Rao Sirasanagandla, Sanchalika Acharyya, Sreenivasulu Reddy Mogali
{"title":"Efficacy of plastinated specimens in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Julian Shu Kai Goh,&nbsp;Ramya Chandrasekaran,&nbsp;Srinivasa Rao Sirasanagandla,&nbsp;Sanchalika Acharyya,&nbsp;Sreenivasulu Reddy Mogali","doi":"10.1002/ase.2424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Plastination, a permanent preservation method for human tissues and organs, is increasingly being used in anatomy education. However, there is a paucity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses summarizing the educational efficacy of plastinated specimens. This meta-analysis compared the assessment scores of students exposed to plastinated specimens against those exposed to other common instructional methods. A systematic search was conducted through four databases, from 2000 to July 2022. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were screened according to predetermined eligibility criteria. Of the 159 records screened, 18 were subjected to full-text review. Among the 18 studies, five articles reported post-intervention test scores for intervention (plastinated) and control (other modalities) groups. Studies were subjected to GRADE quality assessment, and four studies with moderate to high ratings were included for meta-analysis. Students' perceptions (<i>n</i> = 15 studies) were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive narrative analysis. No significant effect was detected between the intervention (<i>n</i> = 417) and control groups (<i>n</i> = 422) (standardized mean difference = 0.08; 95% CI [−0.36, 0.52]; <i>p</i> = 0.73). Four themes emerged from students' perceptions: ease of use, motivation to study, spatial understanding, and learning preference. Overall, student performance outcomes comparing the use of plastinated specimens versus other instructional modalities are very limited. This meta-analysis suggests that knowledge gained from plastinated specimens is comparable to learning achieved through other modalities; though this outcome should be interpreted with caution as there is currently insufficient evidence for definitive conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":124,"journal":{"name":"Anatomical Sciences Education","volume":"17 4","pages":"712-721"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomical Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ase.2424","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Plastination, a permanent preservation method for human tissues and organs, is increasingly being used in anatomy education. However, there is a paucity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses summarizing the educational efficacy of plastinated specimens. This meta-analysis compared the assessment scores of students exposed to plastinated specimens against those exposed to other common instructional methods. A systematic search was conducted through four databases, from 2000 to July 2022. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were screened according to predetermined eligibility criteria. Of the 159 records screened, 18 were subjected to full-text review. Among the 18 studies, five articles reported post-intervention test scores for intervention (plastinated) and control (other modalities) groups. Studies were subjected to GRADE quality assessment, and four studies with moderate to high ratings were included for meta-analysis. Students' perceptions (n = 15 studies) were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive narrative analysis. No significant effect was detected between the intervention (n = 417) and control groups (n = 422) (standardized mean difference = 0.08; 95% CI [−0.36, 0.52]; p = 0.73). Four themes emerged from students' perceptions: ease of use, motivation to study, spatial understanding, and learning preference. Overall, student performance outcomes comparing the use of plastinated specimens versus other instructional modalities are very limited. This meta-analysis suggests that knowledge gained from plastinated specimens is comparable to learning achieved through other modalities; though this outcome should be interpreted with caution as there is currently insufficient evidence for definitive conclusions.

塑化标本在解剖学教育中的功效:系统回顾和荟萃分析
塑化是一种永久保存人体组织和器官的方法,越来越多地被用于解剖学教育。然而,总结塑化标本教育效果的系统回顾和荟萃分析却很少。本荟萃分析比较了接触塑化标本的学生与接触其他常见教学方法的学生的评估分数。从 2000 年到 2022 年 7 月,我们在四个数据库中进行了系统检索。根据预先确定的资格标准对检索到的记录的标题和摘要进行了筛选。在筛选出的 159 条记录中,有 18 条进行了全文审阅。在这 18 项研究中,有 5 篇文章报告了干预组(塑化)和对照组(其他方式)的干预后测试分数。对这些研究进行了 GRADE 质量评估,并纳入了四项中高评级的研究进行荟萃分析。采用归纳叙述分析法对学生的看法(n = 15 项研究)进行了定性分析。干预组(n = 417)和对照组(n = 422)之间没有发现明显的效果(标准化平均差异 = 0.08; 95% CI [-0.36, 0.52]; p = 0.73)。学生的看法有四个主题:易用性、学习动力、空间理解和学习偏好。总体而言,比较使用塑化标本与其他教学模式的学生成绩结果非常有限。这项荟萃分析表明,从塑化标本中获得的知识与通过其他方式获得的知识相当;但由于目前还没有足够的证据得出明确的结论,因此在解释这一结果时应谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anatomical Sciences Education
Anatomical Sciences Education Anatomy/education-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
39.70%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Anatomical Sciences Education, affiliated with the American Association for Anatomy, serves as an international platform for sharing ideas, innovations, and research related to education in anatomical sciences. Covering gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neurosciences, the journal addresses education at various levels, including undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, allied health, medical (both allopathic and osteopathic), and dental. It fosters collaboration and discussion in the field of anatomical sciences education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信