Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34140856›Full record

ArticleJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2021

Exploration of the changes in the perceptions of medical students about cadaver dissections using metaphors.

Hyo-Hyun Yoo, Sein Shin, Jun-Ki Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Hyo-Hyun YooDepartment of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
Sein ShinDepartment of Biology Education, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea.
Jun-Ki LeeDivision of Science Education, Biology Major, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju-si, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study examines the changes in metaphors used by medical students before and after the dissection of a cadaver. This will help qualitatively understand the meaning of cadaver dissections.

methodsThe metaphorical expressions about the practice of dissection that were used before and after the dissection exercises were collected from 147 Korean medical students. The collected qualitative data were categorised through a repeated comparative analysis.

resultsThe results of the analysis identified seven types of metaphors that were used before the dissection practice: 'rite of passage', 'first step', 'precious opportunity', 'fog', 'hell', 'thrill', and 'double-edged sword'. After the cadaver dissection, nine types of metaphors were used: 'introspection', 'hell', 'precious opportunity', 'treasure hunt', 'turning point', 'debt', 'mist', 'bittersweet candy', and 'buzzer beater'. In general, before a cadaver dissection, students recognised the importance of the practice of cadaver dissection as being a 'gateway' or a 'growing pain'. Metaphors such as 'introspection' and 'mirror' were used with an improved attitude. However, some students continued to use negative metaphors, such as 'hell', before and after the cadaver dissection and maintained negative feelings about it.

conclusionsThe results of our study suggest that, for many medical students, cadaver dissection is a crucial stage of self-reflection and for the formation of their identities as doctors. The consideration of students' perceptions during all cadaver dissections is therefore essential.

Indexed as

Cadaver dissectionMedical studentMetaphorMetaphoric changesStudent perception

Identifiers

PMID34140856
PMCPMC8178687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.