Analysis of Gross Anatomy Educational References Used by Anatomy Graduate Students
Authors: Klein Barbie A. , Attardi Stefanie M. , Farkas Gary J. 
Published: May 2022

INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVE

Anatomy educational references are seldom vetted for anatomy graduate programs and what is required or recommended may not be what learners actually used or preferred. This study sought to investigate the educational references, including gross anatomy textbooks, atlases, and dissectors that were required, recommended, actually used, and preferred by anatomy graduate students.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A survey was developed, piloted, and then distributed to several anatomy society listservs and forums March–April 2020. The survey was also sent directly to anatomy graduate program directors for distribution to their respective cohorts. The survey consisted of 21 questions and 6 demographic questions. Participants selected the gross anatomy textbooks, atlases, and dissectors that were required, recommended, and actually used during their graduate anatomy program. Participants also selected their most preferred resources and described what they valued most from those resources. Descriptive statistics were calculated and open‐ended responses were coded and categorized.

RESULTS

Ninety‐eight responses were included for analysis (66.3% faculty, 31.6% current graduate students, 2% postdoctoral fellows). The most required, actually used, and preferred textbook was Moore’s Clinically Oriented Anatomy (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Wolters Kluwer) (32%, 28.9%, and 88.7%, respectively). The most commonly recommended textbooks were both Moore’s Clinically Oriented Anatomy and Netter’s Clinical Anatomy (Saunders) (both 18%). The most required, actually used, and preferred atlas was Netter’s Atlas of Human Anatomy (Saunders) (32.9%, 37.5%, and 41.5%, respectively), whereas the most frequently recommended atlas was Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) (27.7%). The most required, actually used, recommended, and preferred dissector was Grant's Dissector (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins) (64.2%, 57.9%, 62.5%, and 69.8%, respectively). Respondents most valued textbook content with integrated clinical applications (46%), appropriately detailed images (8%), and ease of navigating or searching content (3%). For preferred atlases, respondents valued figures that are comprehendible (32%), detailed (18%), anatomically accurate with correct labels (11%), cadaveric photographs (12%), a variety of vantage points of the same region (6%), and an aesthetically‐pleasing design (3%). The most valued aspects of dissectors included clear (20%) stepwise instructions (18%) with reference figures depicting how to complete the dissection (8%).

CONCLUSION

While a plethora of anatomical reference materials exist, only a select few are required, actually used, and preferred among surveyed anatomy graduate programs. Anatomy graduate students have specific preferences for textbooks, atlases, and dissectors that center around clinical applications, detail, and clarity in text, figures, or instructions.

SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATION

Modernization of anatomy reference materials is underway and these results may support the development of specific resources based on what was actually used and preferred by anatomy graduate students during their education.