Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) created unparalleled challenges to anatomy education. Gross anatomy education has been particularly impacted given the traditional in‐person format of didactic instruction and/or laboratory component(s). To assess the changes in gross anatomy lecture and laboratory instruction, assessment, and teaching resources utilized as a result of Covid‐19, a survey was distributed to gross anatomy educators through professional associations and listservs. Of the 67 survey responses received for the May–August 2020 academic period, 84% were from United States (US) institutions, while 16% were internationally based. Respondents indicated that in‐person lecture decreased during Covid‐19 (before: 76%, during: 8%, P < 0.001) and use of cadaver materials declined (before: 76 ± 33%, during: 34 ± 43%, P < 0.001). The use of cadaver materials in laboratories decreased during Covid‐19 across academic programs, stand‐alone and integrated anatomy courses, and private and public institutions (P ≤ 0.004). Before Covid‐19, cadaveric materials used in laboratories were greater among professional health programs relative to medical and undergraduate programs (P ≤ 0.03) and among stand‐alone relative to integrated anatomy courses (P ≤ 0.03). Furthermore, computer‐based assessment increased (P < 0.001) and assessment materials changed from cadaveric material to images (P < 0.03) during Covid‐19, even though assessment structure was not different (P > 0.05). The use of digital teaching resources increased during Covid‐19 (P < 0.001), with reports of increased use of in‐house created content, BlueLink, and Complete Anatomy software (P < 0.05). While primarily representing US institutions, this study provided evidence of how anatomy educators adapted their courses, largely through virtual mediums, and modified laboratory protocols during the initial emergence of the Covid‐19 pandemic.

The debate regarding anatomy laboratory teaching approaches is ongoing and controversial. To date, the literature has yielded only speculative conclusions because of general methodological weaknesses and a lack of summative empirical evidence. Through a meta-analysis, this study compared the effectiveness of instructional laboratory approaches used in anatomy education to objectively and more conclusively synthesize the existing literature. Studies published between January 1965 and December 2015 were searched through five databases. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were screened using eligibility criteria to determine their appropriateness for study inclusion. Only numerical data were extracted for analysis. A summary effect size was estimated to determine the effects of laboratory pedagogies on learner performance and perceptions data were compiled to provide additional context. Of the 3,035 records screened, 327 underwent full-text review. Twenty-seven studies, comprising a total of 7,731 participants, were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis detected no effect (standardized mean difference 5 20.03; 95% CI 5 20.16 to 0.10; P 5 0.62) on learner performance. Additionally, a moderator analysis detected no effects (P 0.16) for study design, learner population, intervention length, or specimen type. Across studies, student performance on knowledge examinations was equivalent regardless of being exposed to either dissection or another laboratory instructional strategy. This was true of every comparison investigated (i.e., dissection vs. prosection, dissection vs. digital media, dissection vs. models/modeling, and dissection vs. hybrid). In the context of short-term knowledge gains alone,

Covid‐19 disrupted the in‐person teaching format of anatomy. To study changes in gross anatomy education that occurred August‐December, 2020 compared to before the pandemic, an online survey was distributed to anatomy educators. The 191 responses received were analyzed in total and by academic program, geographic region, and institution type. Cadaver use decreased overall (before: 74.1 ± 34.1%, during: 50.3 ± 43.0%, P < 0.0001), as well as across allopathic and osteopathic medicine, therapy, undergraduate, and veterinary programs ( P < 0.05), but remained unchanged for other programs ( P > 0.05). Cadaver use decreased internationally and in the US ( P < 0.0001), at public and private ( P < 0.0001) institutions, and among allopathic medical programs in Northeastern, Central, and Southern ( P < 0.05), but not Western, US geographical regions. Laboratories during Covid‐19 were delivered through synchronous (59%), asynchronous (4%), or mixed (37%) formats ( P < 0.0001) and utilized digital resources (47%), dissection (32%), and/or prosection (21%) ( P < 0.0001). The practical laboratory examination persisted during Covid‐19 ( P = 0.419); however, the setting and materials shifted to computer‐based ( P < 0.0001) and image‐based ( P < 0.0001), respectively. In‐person lecture decreased during Covid‐19 (before: 88%, during: 24%, P = 0.003). When anatomy digital resources were categorized, dissection media, interactive software, and open‐access content increased (P ≤ 0.008), with specific increases in BlueLink, Acland’s Videos, and Complete Anatomy ( P < 0.05). This study provided evidence of how gross anatomy educators continued to adapt their courses past the early stages of the pandemic.

While prior meta-analyses in anatomy education have explored the effects of laboratory pedagogies and histology media on learner performance, the effects of student-centered learning (SCL) and computer-aided instruction (CAI) have not been broadly evaluated. This research sought to answer the question, "How effective are student-centered pedagogies and CAI at increasing student knowledge gains in anatomy compared to traditional didactic approaches?" Relevant studies published within the past 51 years were searched using five databases. Predetermined eligibility criteria were applied to the screening of titles and abstracts to discern their appropriateness for study inclusion. A summary effect size was estimated to determine the effects of SCL and CAI on anatomy performance outcomes. A moderator analysis of study features was also performed. Of the 3,035 records screened, 327 underwent full-text review. Seven studies, which comprised 1,564 participants, were included in the SCL analysis. An additional 19 studies analyzed the effects of CAI in the context of 2,570 participants. Upon comparing SCL to traditional instruction, a small positive effect on learner performance was detected (standardized mean difference (SMD = 0.24; [CI = 0.07, 0.42]; P = 0.006). Likewise, students with CAI exposure moderately outscored those with limited or no access to CAI (SMD = 0.59; [CI = 0.20, 0.98]; P = 0.003). Further analysis of CAI studies identified effects (P ≤ 0.001) for learner population, publication period, interventional approach, and intervention frequency. Overall, learners exposed to SCL and supplemental CAI outperformed their more classically-trained peers as evidenced by increases in short-term knowledge gains. Anat Sci Educ. © 2018 American Association of Anatomists.

Although many individual studies have reported non-significant findings in comparisons of VM and OM, the enhanced power afforded by meta-analysis revealed that the pedagogical approach of VM is modestly superior to that of OM and is preferred by learners.