Throughout the world, recent developments in medical curricula have led to marked changes in the teaching of gross anatomy. This change has involved decreasing curricular student contact time and the use of new methods for anatomical teaching. Some "modern" anatomists have welcomed the arrival of these novel methods while other, more "traditional," anatomists have fought to maintain the use of cadaveric dissection. Consequently, controversy over teaching methods has developed to the point that "modernist" and "traditionalist" views within the community of professional anatomists seem to have diverged such that the importance of gross anatomy in the medical curriculum is disputed and that cadaveric dissection by students is no longer the preferred method of teaching. This study tests this hypothesis using Thurstone and Chave attitude analyses to assess attitudes to educational change and the importance of anatomy in medicine and a matrix questionnaire that required professional anatomists to relate course aims to different teaching methods. In total, 112 completed questionnaires were received from anatomists who are employed at higher education institutions that use various teaching methods and who span the academic hierarchy. The results suggest that over 90% of anatomists favor educational change and approximately 98% of professional anatomists believe that gross anatomy has an important role to play in clinical medicine. A clear majority of the anatomists (69%) favored the use of human cadaveric dissection over other teaching methods (this method seeming to achieve a range of different course aims/objectives) (P < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis). Using Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests, the order-of-preference for teaching methods was found to be as follows: 1. Practical lessons using cadaveric dissection by students. 2. Practical lessons using prosection. 3. Tuition based upon living and radiological anatomy. 4. Electronic tuition using computer aided learning (CAL). 5. Didactic teaching alone (e.g. lectures/class room-based tuition). 6. Use of models. The preference for the use of human cadaveric dissection was evident in all groups of anatomists, whether "traditionalist" or "modernist" (P = 0.002, Chi-squared). These findings are therefore not consistent with our initial hypothesis.

Changes in the teaching of gross anatomy have often involved decreasing student contact time alongside the use of new methods for teaching. However, there remains controversy over teaching methods and about whether cadaveric dissection by students should remain the preferred method. Furthermore, decisions concerning changes to curricula are more likely to be taken by choosing a method of teaching rather than by proper evaluation of what are the desired learning outcomes for a course in anatomy. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the attitudes of anatomists in Europe towards the methods of teaching best fitting a series of learning outcomes for anatomy and secondarily to test the hypothesis that, from evaluation of learning outcomes, anatomy is best taught by cadaveric dissection by the students. About 113 completed questionnaires were received from anatomists who are employed at higher education institutions that use various teaching methods. Most anatomists (69%) favored the use of cadaveric dissection above other teaching methods when considering the whole series of learning comes, this method seeming to achieve a range of different course aims/objectives, P < 0.001; Kruskal-Wallis). Consequently, these findings are consistent with our initial hypothesis. However, when individual learning outcomes were considered, the relationship was not so clear cut and, for example, little difference was discernible between teaching methods when considering learning outcomes related to the acquisition of anatomical knowledge. The use of human cadaveric dissection gained more approval when the skills-base was considered rather than just the content(knowledge)-base of an anatomical course.

Recent developments worldwide in medical curricula have often led to major cuts in the teaching of human anatomy. Indeed, it is perceived by some that gross (topographical) anatomy has an exaggerated importance in the initial training of doctors. The value of anatomy consequently has frequently been considerably diminished within medical curricula that have reduced factual content. To date, however, there have been no objective studies into the perceived relevance of anatomy to clinical medicine that have aimed to quantify the attitudes of medical students. On the basis of responses to an attitude analysis questionnaire devised according to the precepts of Thurstone and Chave (The Measurement of Attitude: A Psychophysical Method and Some Experiments with a Scale for Measuring Attitude Toward the Church. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1951), we investigated the perception of medical students at Cardiff and Paris towards the importance of gross anatomy to clinical medicine. This was undertaken during the early stages of their studies (when they were newly-admitted to university and were about to commence anatomy courses), immediately after finishing their anatomy courses, and later in the final year of medical studies. The results suggest that, even where there might be geopolitical and cultural backgrounds, students at all stages of their medical course share with professional anatomists the view that anatomy is a very important subject for their clinical studies. Thus, contrary to the unquantified beliefs of those who are sceptical about the purpose and value of anatomy in an undergraduate medical curriculum, the students themselves do not appear to share such beliefs.

There is increasingly a call for clinical relevance in the teaching of the biomedical sciences within all health care programs. This presupposes that there is an understanding of what is "core" material within the curriculum. To date, the anatomical sciences have been poorly served by the development of core syllabuses, although there have been commendable attempts to define a core syllabus for gross anatomy in medicine and for some medical specialties. The International Federation of Associations of Anatomists and the European Federation for Experimental Morphology aim to formulate, on an international basis, core syllabuses for all branches of the anatomical sciences. This is being undertaken at the initial stage using Delphi Panels consisting of a team of anatomists, scientists, and clinicians who evaluate syllabus content and accord each element/topic "essential," "important," "acceptable," or "not required" status. Their initial conjectures, published on the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists' website, provide merely a framework to enable anatomical (and other cognate learned) societies and individual anatomists, clinicians, and students to comment upon the syllabuses. This article presents the concepts and methodological approaches underlying the hybrid Delphi process employed. Preliminary findings relating to the development of a neuroanatomy core syllabus are provided to illustrate the methods initially employed by a Delphi Panel. The approach is novel in that it is international in scope, is conceptually democratic, and is developmentally fluid in terms of availability for amendment. The aim is to set internationally recognized standards and thus to provide guidelines concerning anatomical knowledge when engaged in course development.

The study of human anatomy has traditionally served as a fundamental component in the basic science education of medical students, yet there exists a remarkable lack of firm guidance on essential features that must be included in a gross anatomy course, which would constitute a "Core Syllabus" of absolutely mandatory structures and related clinical pathologies. While universal agreement on the details of a core syllabus is elusive, there is a general consensus that a core syllabus aims to identify the minimum level of knowledge expected of recently qualified medical graduates in order to carry out clinical procedures safely and effectively, while avoiding overloading students with unnecessary facts that have less immediate application to their future careers as clinicians. This paper aims to identify consensus standards of essential features of Head and Neck anatomy via a Delphi Panel consisting of anatomists and clinicians who evaluated syllabus content structures (greater than 1,000) as "essential", "important", "acceptable", or "not required." The goal is to provide guidance for program/course directors who intend to provide the optimal balance between establishing a comprehensive list of clinically relevant essential structures and an overwhelming litany, which would otherwise overburden trainees in their initial years of medical school with superficial rote learning, which potentially dilutes the key and enduring fundamental lessons that prepare students for training in any medical field.