Koppes Dorothea Maria, Triepels Charlotte Petronella Robertus, Notten Kim Josephina Bernadette, Smeets Carlijn Franscisca Anna, Kruitwagen Rutgerus Franciscus Petrus Maria, Van Gorp Toon, Scheele Fedde, Van Kuijk Sander Martijn Job
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Present Address: GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Med Sci Educ. 2022 Mar 30;32(2):569-581. doi: 10.1007/s40670-022-01509-w. eCollection 2022 Apr.
This literature review aimed to gain more insight into the level of anatomical knowledge based on published measurements among medical students, residents, fellows, and specialists.
We performed an extensive literature search in three online databases: Medline (using PubMed), Web of Science, and Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC).
A total of 30 relevant studies were found. In these studies, participants took different anatomy tests, and their mean/median scaled scores range from 22.5 to 82.4% on a 0 to 100% scale.
This review provides an overview of what is known about measured anatomical knowledge. After critically reviewing the literature, we have to conclude that the existing literature confirms that anatomical knowledge is hard to establish, mainly due to the lack of standardisation.Further research should focus on ways to define and assess 'desired anatomical knowledge' in different contexts. In a next phase, we can discuss if anatomical knowledge is lacking and if interventions are needed.
本文献综述旨在通过已发表的医学生、住院医师、研究员和专科医生的测量数据，更深入地了解解剖学知识水平。
我们在三个在线数据库中进行了广泛的文献检索：医学文献数据库（使用PubMed）、科学网和教育资源信息中心（ERIC）。
共找到30项相关研究。在这些研究中，参与者进行了不同的解剖学测试，其平均/中位数标准化分数在0至100%的量表上从22.5%到82.4%不等。
本综述概述了关于测量解剖学知识的已知情况。在对文献进行批判性审查后，我们不得不得出结论，现有文献证实解剖学知识难以确立，主要原因是缺乏标准化。进一步的研究应侧重于在不同背景下定义和评估“所需解剖学知识”的方法。在下一阶段，我们可以讨论是否缺乏解剖学知识以及是否需要干预措施。
