Claims

The evidence base on anatomy teacher profiles is geographically skewed toward the Americas and toward medicine, limiting generalizability

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Of the 42 included studies, most were conducted in America (n=21) and Europe (n=11), and data were collected mainly in medicine (n=32), which the authors identify as a geographical and professional generalizability limitation. → Fevry Joanne 2026

Evidence

Fevry Joanne 2026

Fevry Joanne, Fotsing Salomon, Merghem Meriem, Roberge Anne, Ramdani Rayan, Filion Isabelle, Domecq Marie-Cécile, Jalali Alireza. (2026). Profile of anatomy teachers of students in healthcare professions: a scoping review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08721-x

q2 · i? · review · r2

Limitations section of the PRISMA-ScR scoping review of 42 studies; the authors state the concentration of included studies in the Americas, particularly the United States, "could lead to a geographical bias." No effect size printed.

"This could lead to a geographical bias, given that the skills and experience of these teachers vary from one region or institution to another, while some countries are underrepresented."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.