ArticleScientific reports2025
Exploring entry pathways of microorganisms into an anatomical dissection course.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Biosafety implications of cadaver preservation methods in veterinary anatomy education.Veterinary research communications · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anatomical dissection courses are central to medical education. Despite advances in fixation techniques, cadavers remain vulnerable to microbial contamination. Thus, we aimed to assess microbial entry pathways and discuss mitigation strategies in a dissection course setting. Microbial load assessments were performed using sedimentation and contact plate sampling at various points, including doorknobs, gown sleeves, and air inside the dissection hall. Airborne microbial loads were significantly lower under laminar airflow systems compared to areas without controlled air supply, particularly near sinks and entryways (median 17.0 vs. 51.0 CFUs/4 h). The airborne microbial load was significantly lower during unoccupied times compared to dissection hours (median 2.5 vs. 44.0 CFUs/4 h). The dissection hall doorknob showed increased microbial counts after use on 4 of 6 days, though levels remained below critical thresholds. Gown sleeves had a variable but overall low microbial load. Our study suggests that controlled air supply is a key factor for reduced microbial loads. In contrast, the risk of microbial transmission via the doorknobs is negligible. The microbial load on gown sleeves was comparable to that of clean hospital laundry. Future studies should monitor microbial loads on cadaver surfaces to clarify contamination dynamics and refine hygiene protocols.
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.