Abstract:
Background. Assessing the level of knowledge of
anatomy of undergraduate students four years after their
primary anatomy training will give a better indication as to
which system of teaching is more effective. We aimed to
ascertain which method was more effective at establishing
a core of anatomy knowledge that could be recalled after
a considerable amount of time.
Methods. We tested two groups of medical students in
their final year on the key concepts of gross anatomy using
a question paper that included true–false type questions
and identification of anatomical line diagrams. These two
batches of students followed a dissection-based curriculum
and a newly introduced prosections-based curriculum at
the beginning of their medical education. The prosectionsbased curriculum brought with it a reduction in the in-class
teaching and learning activities when compared to the old
curriculum. This would in turn reflect how much anatomy
knowledge one would possess when they start to practise
medicine as a newly qualified doctor and also embark on
a postgraduate training programme. The two groups were
subjected without prior warning to a question paper that
had six questions, each with five true–false statements and
four questions on identification and labelling of anatomical
line diagrams.
Results. There was no statistically significant difference
in the marks obtained for the true–false type questions
between the two groups (p=0.08), but the prosections group obtained higher marks for the diagram identification
questions (p=0.02).
Conclusion. A prosection-based curriculum when
compared to a dissection-based curriculum was equally
effective at establishing a core of gross anatomy knowledge.
