Discussions regarding using dissection to teach gross anatomy are characterized by a dearth of factual data. A literature search for such evidence turned up 16 studies that were pertinent. For more accurate information on the impact of cadaver dissection on cognitive learning outcomes, these were reviewed again. All of the studies that were compared had groups of students who had experienced various teaching methods, such as active dissection, learning from prosected material, or a mix of these methods plus digital teaching tools. Student groups that were compared had a wide range of study and course designs, and they weren't always homogeneous. In all research, assessments of anatomical knowledge were not uniform, and comparing learning experiences varied across multiple variables. The findings of the research that have been evaluated are challenging to understand and generalize. The review reveals a minor advantage for traditional dissection over prosection, taking into account the bias that must be anticipated for teachers who construct new course designs and compare these with conventional ones. To resolve the general issue of the little measurable impact of educational interventions and reach rational conclusions about the most effective way to teach gross anatomy, more complex research designs may be required. Such studies must use large enough sample numbers, approved assessment tools, and a description of the educational importance of any disparities. Future doctors depend too much on their understanding of anatomy to let current trends in education determine how it is taught.