Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39443933›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

A survey of essential anatomy from the perspective of anesthesiology, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and orthopedics resident physicians.

Derek J Harmon, Mark H Hankin, James R Martindale, Iuliana Niculescu, Adrienne Aschmetat, Rachel E Hanke, Andrew S Koo, Shannon R Carpenter, Pamela E Emmanuel, Catherine M Pokropek and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Derek J Harmon *Division of Anatomy, Department of Biomedical Education and Anatomy, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA. drderekharmon@gmail.com.
Mark H Hankin *Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
James R MartindaleOffice of Medical Education, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Iuliana NiculescuDepartment of Internal Medicine, Beaumont Health, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Adrienne AschmetatDepartment of Internal Medicine, Oaklawn Hospital, Marshall, MI, USA.
Rachel E HankeDivision of Colorectal and Pelvic Reconstruction, Children's National Hospital, Washington, D.C, USA.
Andrew S KooDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA.
Shannon R CarpenterDepartment of Orthopedics, VA Medical Center, MO and Amberwell Orthopedic Care, Kansas CityLansing, KS, USA.
Pamela E EmmanuelSparrow Eaton Hospital, Lansing, MI, USA.
Catherine M PokropekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mission Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beaumont Hospital, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI, USA.
Ksenia KoltunNorthstar Anesthesiology and Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent changes in anatomy curricula in undergraduate medical education (UME), including pedagogical changes and reduced time, pose challenges for foundational learning. Consequently, it is important to ask clinicians what anatomical content is important for their clinical specialty, which when taken collectively, can inform curricular development.

methodsThis study surveyed 55 non-primary care residents in anesthesiology (AN; N = 6), emergency medicine (EM; N = 15), obstetrics and gynecology (OB; N = 13), and orthopedics (OR; N = 21) to assess the importance of 907 anatomical structures across all anatomical regions. Survey ratings by participants were converted into a post-hoc classification system to provide end-users of this data with an intuitive and useful classification system for categorizing individual anatomical structures (i.e., essential, more important, less important, not important).

resultsSignificant variability was observed in the classifications of essential anatomy: 29.1% of all structures were considered essential by OB residents, 37.6% for AN residents, 41.6% for EM residents, and 72.0% for OR residents. Significant differences (with large effect sizes) were also observed between residency groups: OR residents rated anatomy of the back, limbs, and pelvis and perineum anatomy common to both sexes significantly higher, whereas OB residents rated the pelvis and perineum anatomy common to both sexes and anatomy for individuals assigned female at birth highest. Agreement in classifications of importance among residents was observed for selected anatomical structures in the thorax, abdomen, pelvis and perineum (assigned male at birth-specific anatomy), and head and neck. As with the ratings of anatomical structures, OR residents had the highest classification across all nine tissue types (p < 0.01).

conclusionsThe present study created a database of anatomical structures assessed from a clinical perspective that may be considered when determining foundational anatomy for UME curriculum, as well as for graduate medical education.

Indexed as

AnatomyAnesthesiologyCurriculumEmergency MedicineGynecologyInternship and ResidencyObstetricsEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleOrthopedicsSurveys and QuestionnairesAnatomy educationCurriculum developmentGraduate medical educationMedical curriculumMedical educationUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID39443933
PMCPMC11515711

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.