ReviewClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2026
What Is the Appropriate Sample Size in Human Cadaveric Studies? A Quantitative Review of 770 Articles.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anatomical Variations and Morphometry of the Pudendal Nerve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- The axillary vein and its tributaries: anatomical variations, morphometry, and surgical implications.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Article
- The foramen of Magendie: a comprehensive review of its history, anatomy, pathology, and surgical approaches.Anatomy & cell biology · 2026Review
- Does an alar ligament tubercle exist? Anatomical study with application to imaging interpretation and skull base approaches.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Effect of the Reverse Cotton Osteotomy on First Metatarsal Position: A Cadaveric Study.Foot & ankle international · 2026Article
- Comprehensive review of the cerebral aqueduct: anatomy, embryology, imaging, genetics, molecular, and pathology.Anatomy & cell biology · 2026Review
- The enigmatic occipital emissary vein, foramina, and canals: anatomical study with application to skull base surgery.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Supreme nasal conchae in human cadavers: prevalence, morphometry, and a new classification proposal.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Article
- Biomechanical evaluation of biodegradable zinc and polylactide pins for radial head fracture fixation: a human cadaver study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- What is the optimum incision for superficial temporal artery biopsy? An anatomical study using body donors.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Article
- Hairline as a Neurosurgical Landmark.Cureus · 2026Article
- Validation and reliability of a novel portable automated knee arthrometer: a cadaveric study bridging the skin-to-bone gap and suggesting medial pivotal rotation as a superior marker for ACL deficiency.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Response to: Hemidiaphragmatic paresis with anterior suprascapular nerve block: clinical implications.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2026Article
- What Is the Appropriate Sample Size in Human Cadaveric Studies? A Quantitative Review of 770 Articles.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Article
- Anatomical relationship between the anterior arm of the semimembranosus tendon and the medial collateral ligament: A cadaveric study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Comparison of Radiographic Stress Views in Detecting Scapholunate Ligament Injuries: A Cadaveric Model Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability of Dynamic Handheld Ultrasound Testing in Detecting Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears: A Cadaveric Study.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.