ArticlePloS one2024
Practitioner preferences in the analysis of cremation deposits in archaeology and biological anthropology: An overview of current osteoarchaeological practices with a focus on sex estimation.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteological data, such as biological sex, constitute a base for research in paleodemography and palaeopathology, as well as for understanding past socio-cultural practices. Despite extensive research efforts concerning cremated human remains over the past decades, an internationally acknowledged, standardized osteological protocol is not fully agreed upon. Furthermore, assessing cremation research practices from the literature is challenging because analysis reports are often written in the national languages of practitioners, which makes them difficult to access by an international audience. This study addresses this gap by directly reaching out to experts working with cremated human remains through an online questionnaire in Lime Survey. The aim is to identify and characterize patterns in cremation analysis practices. A particular emphasis was put on the methods of biological sex estimation. While the significance of these data is widely acknowledged, the ways in which they are obtained in practice are seldom examined. The results of this survey reveal an absence of standardization in protocols of analysis, and data collection, as well as in reporting on the cremated remains in publications and reports. Notably, the findings reveal regional preferences in methodological choices and inconsistent institutional training. A majority of respondents expressed a preference for traditional morphological methods over recently published metric and alternative methods for sex estimation. These variations underscore the complexity of establishing standardized cremation analysis protocols and highlight the importance of considering regional contexts and training in shaping future research practices.
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.