Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2022 Jan 20;15(1):5–26. doi: 10.1002/ase.2152

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2021 American Association for Anatomy

This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

PMC Copyright notice

Percentage of laboratory time using cadaver, plastic, and “other” teaching modalities before and during Covid‐19 pandemic (August–December 2020) by academic program (n = 190; anatomy graduate, n = 19; dental, n = 11; graduate health, n = 6; allopathic medicine, n = 71; osteopathic medicine, n = 11; nursing, n = 6; physician assistant, n = 6; therapy, n = 17; undergraduate n = 40; veterinary, n = 3). Cadaver includes dissection and prosection; plastic includes plastic models and plastinated specimens. ^aPercent time using cadaver, plastic, and “other” were significantly different before and during Covid‐19 (P ≤ 0.045); ^bPercent time using cadavers was significantly different across programs before Covid‐19 (Kruskal–Wallis test H, P < 0.0001). Dunn's post hoc analysis showed that cadaver usage was significantly less in the undergraduate versus anatomy graduate (P = 0.001), allopathic (P < 0.0001) and osteopathic (P < 0.0001) medicine, physician assistant (P = 0.019), therapy (P < 0.0001), and graduate health (P = 0.047) programs. Similarly, cadaver usage was significantly less in the nursing versus anatomy graduate (P = 0.010), allopathic (P = 0.004) and osteopathic (P = 0.007) medicine, and therapy (P = 0.008) programs; ^cPercent time using cadavers was significantly different across programs during Covid‐19 (Kruskal–Wallis test H, P < 0.0001). Dunn's analysis showed that cadaver usage was significantly less in the undergraduate versus anatomy graduate (P < 0.0001), allopathic (P = 0.001) osteopathic (P = 0.027) medicine, and therapy (P = 0.016) programs; ^dPercent time using plastics was significantly different across programs before Covid‐19 (Kruskal–Wallis test H, P < 0.0001). Dunn's analysis showed that plastics usage was significantly greater in the undergraduate versus anatomy graduate (P < 0.0001), allopathic (P < 0.0001) and osteopathic (P < 0.0001) medicine, and therapy (P < 0.0001) programs; ^ePercent time using plastics was significantly different across programs during Covid‐19 (Kruskal–Wallis test H, P < 0.0001). Dunn's analysis showed that cadaver usage was significantly less in the undergraduate versus anatomy graduate (P = 0.017), dental (P = 0.026), allopathic (P < 0.0001) and osteopathic (P < 0.003) medicine, and therapy (P = 0.010) programs; ^fPercent time using “other” was significantly different across programs before Covid‐19 (Kruskal–Wallis test H, P = 0.006). Dunn's analysis showed that cadaver usage was significantly greater in the nursing versus anatomy graduate (P = 0.018), allopathic medicine (P = 0.006), and therapy (P = 0.010) programs