ArticleMedical science educator2020
Student-Authored Autopsy Reports of Anatomical Donors: Their First Patients.
Article in Medical science educator, 2020. 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, 0 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The preparation of student-authored autopsy reports of anatomical donors was added to the Gross Anatomy course to integrate the basic and clinical sciences and determine whether students considered this early clinical exposure to be a valuable experience. All donors were scanned using computerized tomography (CT) and student groups received the scan of their donor and a report written by a radiologist. As students dissected, they took photographs and biopsies of pathological findings that were processed for microscopic evaluation. Following consultation with pathologists and radiologists, each group prepared an autopsy report that proposed a cause of death supported with macroscopic, microscopic, and CT images. Cardiovascular events and cancer were the most common. Autopsy reports were evaluated by the faculty and each student group received feedback with respect to content, accuracy, and completeness and whether faculty agreed with students' proposed cause of death. A majority of students answering an anonymous survey indicated that this exercise was valuable or somewhat valuable, but did not agree that preparation of the autopsy report resulted in their being more engaged during the course. Students agreed or somewhat agreed that the exercise should be repeated next year, that they gained insight into the clinical manifestations of disease, that they were able to interpret the CT scan themselves, that meeting with a pathologist was interesting, and that the time required to prepare the report was adequate. Since autopsy reports prepared by students are feasible and students found it to be a valuable experience, we suggest that medical schools add this to Gross Anatomy courses to introduce clinical material and increase clinical relevance.
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.