ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2016
The amount of information provided in articles published in clinical anatomy and surgical and radiologic anatomy regarding human cadaveric materials and trends in acknowledging donors/cadavers.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAppreciating the contribution of donor-cadavers to medical education is a well observed practice among anatomists. However, the appreciation of their contribution in research and scientific articles remains dubious. We aimed to evaluate how much data anatomists provide about specimens they have used and how frequently anatomists acknowledge their cadavers in published articles. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe evaluated all articles performed on human cadaveric specimens that were published in Clinical Anatomy and Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy between January 2011 and December 2015. We evaluated how much data on the demographics, preservation method(s), source, and ethical/legal permissions regarding cadavers were provided. We also evaluated the number of articles that acknowledged donor-cadavers.
resultsThe majority of articles provided demographic data (age and sex) and preservation method used in the article. The source of the specimens was not mentioned in 45.6 % of the articles. Only 26.2 % of the articles provided a degree of consent and only 32.4 % of the articles reported some form of ethical approval for the study. The cadavers and their families were acknowledged in 17.7 % of the articles. We observed that no standard method for reporting data has been established.
conclusionsAnatomists should collaborate to create awareness among the scientific community for providing adequate information regarding donor-cadavers, including source and consent. Acknowledging donor-cadavers and/or their families should also be promoted. Scientific articles should be used to create a transparent relationship of trust between anatomists and their society.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.