Dissections or Prosections; Which Method has a Better Impact on Sustainable Gross Anatomy Knowledge?
Abstract Background: Two groups of medical students in their final year were tested 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 respectively. The prosections based curriculum brought with it a significant cut down on the in-class teaching and learning activities when compared to the old curriculum. The objective of the study was to establish which method was more effective at establishing a core of anatomy knowledge that could be recalled after a considerable amount of time. This would in turn reflect how much of anatomy knowledge one would possess when they start to practice medicine as a newly qualified doctor and also embark on a postgraduate training programme.Methods: The two groups were subjected without prior warning to a question paper that comprised 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=0.076), but the prosections group obtained higher marks for the diagram identification questions (p = 0.022).Conclusions: Therefore, it was concluded that a prosection based curriculum when compared to a dissection based curriculum was equally effective at establishing a core of gross anatomy knowledge in a considerably lesser amount of time.