ReviewAnatomical sciences education2025
Body donor programs in Australia and New Zealand: Current status and future opportunities.
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 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical students' perspectives on body donation to science within the Italian context.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- The human foundations of anatomy at The University of Sydney: One hundred and one years of body procurement.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Article
- Variability in UK Body Donation Information: A Comparison of Bequeathal Information and Consent Forms With Recommendations for Standardization.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Awareness and Perception of concept of body donation among the first year medical students: A questionnaire-based study.F1000Research · 2026Article
- A global overview of anatomical science education and its present and future role in biomedical curricula.Anatomical sciences education · 2026Review
- Body donor programs in Australia and New Zealand: Current status and future opportunities.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Body donation is critical to anatomy study in Australia and New Zealand. Annually, more than 10,000 students, anatomists, researchers, and clinicians access tissue donated by local consented donors through university-based body donation programs. However, little research has been published about their operations. This study sought to examine the characteristics of the nineteen body donation programs operating in Australia and New Zealand. Information was collected from publicly available sources, virtual interviews with 17/19 programs, and responses to a set of questions (11/19). Body donation is locally regulated in both countries. Four Australian programs operate as central mortuaries supplying users in their state, while the remainder and the New Zealand programs operate institutionally. Annually, 1000-1500 donors are received across both countries. Retention periods vary, although most donors are returned for disposition within 3 years. All facilitate the return of cremated remains to the family on donor election. Most programs (16/19) reported that they received sufficient donors, with many narrowing their acceptance area. Pre-death registration of donors is required by 12/19 programs; five Australian programs will accept next-of-kin donations post-mortem. Next-of-kin authorization is required for donation; New Zealand programs seek this at the time of donor registration. All programs recognize donors; fifteen host commemoration/thanksgiving services for donors and their families. Body donation is well supported by local communities in both countries. Opportunities for improvement include the development of regional standards, engagement with donors/the community about body donation, and recognition of the primacy of donor elections over next-of-kin wishes.
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.