Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The Pirogov interactive anatomy table.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Representative views from the Pirogov interactive anatomy table showing anatomical visualization and virtual dissection functions.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Thematic grouping of the 10-item Likert questionnaire.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

Pre-test and post-test knowledge scores by teaching modality (Pirogov table vs cadaveric dissection).

The graphs showed mean pre-test and post-test scores for Group A (Pirogov interactive anatomy table; n = 99) and Group B (cadaveric dissection; n = 89). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements from pre-test to post-test (paired t-test, p < 0.001 for each group). Post-test scores were not significantly different between groups (independent t-test, p = 0.656; n.s.). Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 2.

Overall Likert-scale domain scores of participants (n = 188).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 4.

Likert-scale domain scores by cohort (Year 1 vs Year 2 medical students).

The graphs presented mean domain scores (± SD) from the 10-item Likert questionnaire comparing Year 1 (Y1; n = 139) and Year 2 (Y2; n = 49) students across four domains: Knowledge and Understanding; Spatial Visualization and Relationships; Learning Experience and Engagement; Effectiveness and Practical Value. Between-cohort comparisons were performed using Welch’s t-test due to unequal sample sizes. A statistically significant difference was observed only for Learning Experience and Engagement (p = 0.023), while other domains were not significant (Knowledge and Understanding p = 0.095; Spatial Visualization and Relationships p = 0.428; Effectiveness and Practical Value p = 0.099; n.s.). Error bars indicate standard deviation (SD).

More »

Fig 4 Expand