Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40692167›Full record

ReviewClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2026

What Is the Appropriate Sample Size in Human Cadaveric Studies? A Quantitative Review of 770 Articles.

Joe Iwanaga, Kyoichi Obata, Tomotaka Kato, Rarinthorn Samrid, Emma R Lesser, Juan J Cardona, Keishiro Kikuchi, Chung Yoh Kim, Kisho Ono, Anthony D'Antoni and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

18 authors.

Joe IwanagaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Research Center, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8502-7952
Kyoichi ObataDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6569-7406
Tomotaka KatoDivision of General Dentistry, Nippon Dental University Hospital, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7159-8201
Rarinthorn SamridDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Research Center, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8958-9162
Emma R LesserDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Research Center, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8160-3669
Juan J CardonaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Research Center, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Keishiro KikuchiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Research Center, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Chung Yoh KimDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Research Center, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8074-076X
Kisho OnoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0199-9907
Anthony D'AntoniDepartment of Medical Education and Scholarship, Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Noritaka KomuneDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9521-9878
Yoko TabiraDivision of Gross and Clinical Anatomy, Department of Anatomy, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6040-5136
Mi-Sun HurDepartment of Anatomy, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1482-1657
Norio KitagawaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Anatomy, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Science Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hee-Jin KimDivision in Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Department of Oral Biology, Human Identification Research Institute, BK21 FOUR Project, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1139-6261
Marios LoukasDepartment of Anatomical Sciences, St. George's University, School of Medicine, Grenada, West Indies.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2811-6657
Koichi WatanabeDivision of Gross and Clinical Anatomy, Department of Anatomy, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6466-4637
R Shane TubbsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neuroscience Research Center, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining an appropriate sample size in human cadaveric studies remains a long-standing and unresolved challenge. Unlike other basic science fields, anatomical research is constrained by factors such as limited human donor availability, cultural considerations, and ethical restrictions. Despite these limitations, researchers are often asked to justify sample sizes, yet no standardized guidelines currently exist. To quantitatively assess sample sizes in recent human cadaveric studies and propose evidence-based recommendations for future research, a PubMed search was conducted on February 26, 2024, using the term human cadaveric study. The articles published in 2023 and 2024 were screened, yielding 770 eligible studies. Data extracted included the total sample size, number of classified groups, and journal impact factor (IF). Descriptive statistics, linear regression, and correlation analyses were performed. Continuous variables were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). The median sample size was 11.5 (IQR: 7-20), and 47.9% of studies used 10 or fewer specimens. The median number of classified groups was 3 (IQR: 2-4). Linear regression showed that studies dividing specimens into 2-6 groups often failed to meet the recommended sample size per group based on regression modeling. No significant correlation was found between sample size and journal IF (r = -0.062, p = 0.115). Most cadaveric studies rely on small sample sizes due to inherent constraints, yet many still attempt a subgroup analysis without sufficient statistical power. Although flexibility is essential in anatomical research, we recommend a minimum total sample size of 10 for basic studies and at least five samples per group for those involving classification. Cadaveric sample size alone does not predict journal impact, highlighting the importance of methodological rigor over quantity.

Indexed as

AnatomyResearch DesignCadaverHumansSample Sizeanatomycadaveric studyevidenceevidence‐basednumbersample sizespecimens

Identifiers

PMID40692167
PMCPMC12747640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.