Cadaveric specimens versus synthetic models for learning gross human anatomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gross human anatomy taught through cadaveric specimens (e.g. prosections, plastinated prosections and skeletons) or synthetic models has controversial results in the literature. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the academic performance of undergraduate health science students who studied gross human anatomy in cadaveric specimens versus those who studied in human synthetic models. English-language searches of six data bases were conducted. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Seven randomised trials that enrolled 536 medical undergraduate students were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant moderate difference in academic performance between groups (standardised mean difference: 0.57 [95% confidence interval: 0.10 to 1.05], p = 0.018), favouring synthetic models' interventions, with substantial/considerable heterogeneity, and low certainty evidence. Human anatomy classes with synthetic models' interventions were associated with a moderate effect on human anatomy academic performance compared to cadaveric specimens in undergraduate medical students. The present study should not be used to justify removing real human specimens from curricula without fully understanding the other benefits that real human specimens provide. Conversely, our findings can at least justify the maintenance of teaching gross human anatomy through synthetic models in universities that, for any reason, still do not have access to cadavers.