Evaluation of a computer program (‘disect’) to consolidate anatomy knowledge: A randomised-controlled trial

Figures & data

Table

Practice points

Anatomy computer resources are increasingly available with some evidence that these can improve knowledge when used in short courses or covering specific areas of anatomy. Students were able to use a complicated program with minimal teaching to see major structures derived from CT scans and gave positive feedback about such a program. Further studies are required to determine how best to use these resources in conjunction with current methods for teaching anatomy.

Figure 1. The ‘disect’ user screen showing the liver and the portal vein (red cross).

Figure 2. A labelled reconstruction of the blood supply to the gut. ‘Disect’ allowed zooming and rotation to gain an appreciation of the anatomy of the coeliac axis and superior mesenteric artery.

Table 1.  Number and percentage of students in the intervention and control groups

	Intervention group n = 11	Control group n = 23
GI students (n = 11)	5 (45%)	6 (26%)
Senses (n = 7)	3 (27%)	4 (17%)
Hormones (n = 16)	3 (27%)	13 (57%)
SSS students (n = 9)	3 (27%)	6 (26%)
Prosection (n = 27)	8 (73%)	19 (83%)

Table 2.  Questionnaire results

	Median*	Interquartile range*
I would like to have access to the program to look at other areas of anatomy	1.0	1–2
I would like to use the program again in the future	1.0	1–2
I would have liked to have had supervised sessions to use the program	1.0	1–3
I thought the program was really good at demonstrating anatomy in 3-D	1.5	1–2
I found it was best to use the program with another learning aid e.g. textbook, atlas	2.0	1–3
I think that the program is really useful for understanding anatomy	2.0	1–3
I think that the program is really useful for understanding CT scans	2.0	1–2
I really enjoyed using the program	2.0	2–2
I would have liked to have had more training using the program	2.0	2–3
I found it easy to orientate myself to 'right and left’	2.0	2–2
I found it easy to navigate through the CT scan	2.0	2–3
The major structures I was looking for were easy to identify	2.0	2–3
I found that it was best to use the program by itself	3.0	3–4
I thought that using the program was confusing	4.0	3–4
I though that using the program was a waste of time	5.0	4–5

*1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree or disagree, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree.

Table 3.  Test scores

	Mean	Mean difference (95% CI)	p-value (t-test)	p-value (linear regression)
Worksheet access	10.7 (n = 11)	0.1	0.95	0.52
Self-directed use	10.6 (n = 23)	(−2.2–2.4)
SSS students	12.8 (n = 9)	2.9	0.014*	0.005*
Non-SSS students	9.9 (n = 25)	(0.6–5.5)
Prosection	11.1 (n = 27)	2.1	0.10	0.07
No prosection	9.0 (n = 7)	(−0.5–4.7)
GI students	11.6 (n = 11)	1.3	0.26	0.47
Non-students	10.3 (n = 23)	(−1.0–3.6)

*p < 0.05.