ReviewJournal of anatomy2019
Toward safer thanatopraxy cares: formaldehyde-releasers use.
Review in Journal of anatomy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potential Causes of Spread of Antimicrobial Resistance and Preventive Measures in One Health Perspective-A Review.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Review
- Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde and Cancer Risk Assessment in an Anatomy Laboratory.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Physical Risk during Necropsy and Morgue Activities as Risk Management Strategy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The 'thanato-resistome' - The funeral industry as a potential reservoir of antibiotic resistance: Early insights and perspectives.The Science of the total environment · 2020Review
- Journal of Anatomy January 2020.Journal of anatomy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human cadavers constitute very useful educational tools to teach anatomy in medical scholarship and related disciplines such as physiology, for example. However, as biological material, human body is subjected to decay. Thanatopraxy cares such as embalming have been developed to slow down and inhibit this decay, but the formula used for the preservation fluids are mainly formaldehyde (FA)-based. Very recently, other formulas were developed in order to replace FA, and to avoid its toxicity leading to important environmental and professional exposure concerns. However, these alternative FA-free fluids are still not validated or commercialized, and their efficiency is still under discussion. In this context, the use of FA-releasing substances, already used in the cosmetics industry, may offer interesting alternatives in order to reduce professional exposures to FA. Simultaneously, the preservation of the body is still guaranteed by FA generated over time from FA-releasers. The aim of this review is to revaluate the use of FA in thanatopraxy cares, to present its benefits and disadvantages, and finally to propose an alternative to reduce FA professional exposure during thanatopraxy cares thanks to FA-releasers use.
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.