ArticleAnatomical sciences education2026
From classroom to clinic: Evaluating the educational utility of two Thiel embalming methods.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. 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
Over three decades since its introduction, the Thiel embalming method remains a widely used and praised technique in anatomical education and clinical training. This study compared for the first time the Thiel original protocol (TO) and a Modified version (TM) across user groups-undergraduate medical students, student demonstrators in anatomy, postgraduate trainees, and expert anatomists-to evaluate tissue quality and educational suitability. A total of 520 participants assessed both methods based on tissue preservation, color, pliability, and achievement of learning objectives. Undergraduate medical students and demonstrators rated TO significantly higher than TM in all domains (p < 0.01), highlighting its lifelike appearance, clear anatomical definition, and superior dissection properties. Anatomists supported these findings, citing better tissue realism and structural integrity in TO specimens. Postgraduate users, mainly orthopedic surgeons, rated both methods similarly for musculoskeletal and nervous tissues, but preferred TO for the clarity of visceral organs (p < 0.01). While TM offered improvements for musculoskeletal training, users reported challenges including overly soft viscera, liquefied fat, and reduced structural clarity, making it less suitable for beginners. Both TO and TM were rated superior to formaldehyde- or ethanol-based techniques in terms of educational utility and realism. Qualitative feedback confirmed TO as better suited for undergraduate anatomy education, particularly for dissection. TM, though valuable in specialized postgraduate training, was seen as less appropriate for novice learners. The findings highlight the need to align embalming protocols with educational goals and experience levels, with TO remaining the preferred method for foundational anatomical training.
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.