↓ Skip to main content

Tools and resources for neuroanatomy education: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tools and resources for neuroanatomy education: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1210-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Arantes, J. Arantes, M. A. Ferreira

Abstract

The aim of this review was to identify studies exploring neuroanatomy teaching tools and their impact in learning, as a basis towards the implementation of a neuroanatomy program in the context of a curricular reform in medical education. Computer-assisted searches were conducted through March 2017 in the PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Current Contents Connect, KCI and Scielo Citation Index databases. Four sets of keywords were used, combining "neuroanatomy" with "education", "teaching", "learning" and "student*". Studies were reviewed independently by two readers, and data collected were confirmed by a third reader. Of the 214 studies identified, 29 studies reported data on the impact of using specific neuroanatomy teaching tools. Most of them (83%) were published in the last 8 years and were conducted in the United States of America (65.52%). Regarding the participants, medical students were the most studied sample (37.93%) and the majority of the studies (65.52%) had less than 100 participants. Approximately half of the studies included in this review used digital teaching tools (e.g., 3D computer neuroanatomy models), whereas the remaining used non-digital learning tools (e.g., 3D physical models). Our work highlight the progressive interest in the study of neuroanatomy teaching tools over the last years, as evidenced from the number of publications and highlight the need to consider new tools, coping with technological development in medical education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Professor 8 6%
Researcher 6 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 4%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 51 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 30%
Neuroscience 15 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 58 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2020.
All research outputs
#7,275,899
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,290
of 3,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,147
of 326,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#36
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.