Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27278888›Full record

ReviewJournal of anatomy2016

The Journal of Anatomy: origin and evolution.

Gillian Morriss-Kay

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anatomy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. PubMed Central: offering a trove of historical medical journals.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gillian Morriss-KayDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Journal of Anatomy was launched 150 years ago as the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, in an age when anatomy and physiology were not regarded as separate disciplines. European science in general was advancing rapidly at the time (it was 7 years after publication of Darwin's Origin of Species), and the recent demise of the Natural History Review meant that there was no English language publication covering these subjects. The founding editors were George Murray Humphry of Cambridge and William Turner of Edinburgh, together with Alfred Newton of Cambridge and Edward Perceval Wright of Dublin (the last two served only for a year). The pivotal event leading to the Journal's foundation was the 1866 meeting of the British Association, at which Humphry delivered the 'Address in Physiology' (printed in the first issue). Turner, who was also present at the 1866 British Association meeting, remained as a member of the editorial team for 50 years and was a major contributor of Journal articles. The title was changed to Journal of Anatomy in October 1916, when it was taken under the wing, in terms of both management and ownership, by the Anatomical Society. This article reviews the early years of the Journal's publication in more detail than later years because of the historical interest of this less familiar material. The subject matter, which has remained surprisingly consistent over the years, is illustrated by examples from some notable contributions. The evolution of illustration techniques is surveyed from 1866 to the present day; the final section provides brief summaries of all of the chief editors.

Indexed as

AnatomyHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyMedical IllustrationPeriodicals as Topic186619th century anatomyGM HumphryWilliam Turner

Identifiers

PMID27278888
PMCPMC5341589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.