Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39910807›Full record

ReviewAnatomical sciences education2025

The history of anatomical engagement.

Quenton Wessels, Adam M Taylor

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. 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. The history of anatomical engagement.Anatomical sciences education · 2025
    Review
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

2 authors.

Quenton WesselsDivision of Anatomy, School of Medicine, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8539-5459
Adam M TaylorLancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4084-0456

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The public's fascination with anatomy has evolved over time and progressed from avoidance of the tainted yet saintly corpse, to their fascination with cabinets of curiosities. The current narrative review explores public engagement (PE), from its potential origins as cave paintings, to the rise of the disciplinarity of anatomy. Historical insights show how the public engaged in anatomy and with anatomy evolved alongside educational trends and advances ethics. Teaching modalities have shifted as resources have fallen out of favor, become unappealing, illegal or logistically challenging to deliver. Historical changes have resulted in newer approaches coming into the limelight, often moving from the anatomy classroom into the public eye. The public's curiosity with anatomy was satisfied through the organized violence of vivisections and dissections, cabinets of curiosity and permanent museums. Today, the driver of PE is research, education and motivation for learning in the hope of improving people's understanding of their bodies. PE has shifted from spectacles to active participation and collaboration. Looking forward, the authors also propose an adaptive interdisciplinary model for PE in anatomy.

Indexed as

AnatomyCommunity ParticipationHistory, 16th CenturyHistory, 17th CenturyHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansanatomyengagementhistorypublic

Identifiers

PMID39910807
PMCPMC12702830

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.