ReviewCureus2024
Legal Frameworks Upholding Deceased Individuals' Rights and Enabling the Use of Cadavers in Anatomy Education and Research: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of human cadavers is essential for teaching, advanced training, and research in medical and anatomical sciences. Medical institutions around the globe presently face a scarcity of cadaver supplies. For the majority of countries, unclaimed bodies are still the primary source of cadavers despite guidelines issued by the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists, which discourage the use of unclaimed bodies. This self-funded study aims to conduct a review of the existing national and international laws safeguarding the several rights of a deceased person. The study also reviewed the existing anatomy acts (and related acts) across various countries that facilitate cadaver supply for anatomy education and research. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, an online search for publications in four medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Google Scholar) was conducted from 1950 till 2022. A research review protocol was registered in PROSPERO prospectively (registration ID: CRD42023469534) using the Mesh terms like cadaver, anatomy education, dead person and rights, body donation program, unclaimed bodies, and anatomy acts. After the application of the eligibility criteria, 149 publications were shortlisted. After reviewing all the shortlisted articles, laws, and guidelines, using the data extraction checklist prepared by both authors, five international laws, three supreme court case decisions, two high court case decisions, four Indian penal Code Sections, and 22 anatomy acts were selected. Articles from other medical databases could not be reviewed, which was the limitation of this study. The anatomy/human tissue/tissue transplantation acts and advisories from regulatory bodies of individual African, Middle-Eastern, and European countries could not be retrieved. The review findings will emphasize the distinctions between India's anatomy acts and those of other developed nations, thereby broadening our perspective as we propose a model anatomy act for uniform implementation across the country to streamline the procurement of cadavers.
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.