Properties of publications on anatomy in medical education literature

Publications on anatomy in medical education appear to be largely anecdotal. To explore this, we investigated the literature on anatomy in medical education, aiming first to evaluate the contribution of the literature on anatomy in medical education to "best evidence medical education" (BEME) and second to evaluate the development of this literature toward more "best evidence" between 1985 and 2009. Four databases were searched for publications on anatomy in medical education published between 1985 and 2009, resulting in 525 references. Hundred publications were characterized by five variables (journal category, paper subject, paper category, author perspective, and paper perspective). Statements from these publications were characterized by two variables (category and foundation). The publications contained 797 statements that involved the words "anatomy," "anatomical," or "anatomist." Forty-five percent of the publications contained no explicit research question. Forty percent of the statements made were about "teaching methods" and 17% about "teaching content," 8% referred to "practical value," and 10% to "side effects" of anatomy education. Ten percent of the statements were "positional," five percent "traditional," four percent "self-evident," and two percent referred to "quality of care." Fifty-six percent of the statements had no foundation, 17% were founded on empirical data, and 27% by references. These results substantiated the critical comments about the anecdotal nature of the literature. However, it is encouraging to see that between 1985 and 2009 the number of publications is rising that these publications increasingly focus on teaching methods and that an academic writing style is developing. This suggests a growing body of empirical literature about anatomy education.