ReviewSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Cadaveric dissection studies in regional anesthesia - A comprehensive bibliographic analysis.
Review in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The anatomical basis and safety optimization of regional anesthesia techniques are supported by cadaveric studies. However, the development of this field of study has not been thoroughly documented. To map publication trends, collaborative networks, and emerging themes in cadaveric studies on regional anesthesia, we conducted a bibliometric analysis. A Scopus database search using the keywords 'cadaveric studies' and 'regional anesthesia' revealed 298 articles from inception till May 2025. The comma-separated values (CSV) file was uploaded to the VOS viewer and CiteSpace software for analyzing various bibliometric parameters like bibliographic coupling, citation, co-authorship, co-occurrence, and co-citation. The results revealed that most of the work was done and published in high-income countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada), in established universities (University of Toronto, Canada), and in high-impact journals (Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine). Future studies should prioritize multicenter, cross-cultural cadaveric validations, standardized anatomical nomenclature, and stronger collaboration among anatomists and anesthesiologists to translate cadaveric insights into clinical protocols and enhance patient safety.
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.