İlke Ali Gürses1, Osman Coşkun2, Başak Gürtekin3, Ayşin Kale2. 1. Department of Anatomy, Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Millet Caddesi, Fatih, Istanbul, 34093, Turkey. iagurses@gmail.com. 2. Department of Anatomy, Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Millet Caddesi, Fatih, Istanbul, 34093, Turkey. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Millet Caddesi, 34093, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
AIM: Appreciating the contribution of donor-cadavers to medical education is a well observed practice among anatomists. However, the appreciation of their contribution in research and scientific articles remains dubious. We aimed to evaluate how much data anatomists provide about specimens they have used and how frequently anatomists acknowledge their cadavers in published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated all articles performed on human cadaveric specimens that were published in Clinical Anatomy and Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy between January 2011 and December 2015. We evaluated how much data on the demographics, preservation method(s), source, and ethical/legal permissions regarding cadavers were provided. We also evaluated the number of articles that acknowledged donor-cadavers. RESULTS: The majority of articles provided demographic data (age and sex) and preservation method used in the article. The source of the specimens was not mentioned in 45.6 % of the articles. Only 26.2 % of the articles provided a degree of consent and only 32.4 % of the articles reported some form of ethical approval for the study. The cadavers and their families were acknowledged in 17.7 % of the articles. We observed that no standard method for reporting data has been established. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomists should collaborate to create awareness among the scientific community for providing adequate information regarding donor-cadavers, including source and consent. Acknowledging donor-cadavers and/or their families should also be promoted. Scientific articles should be used to create a transparent relationship of trust between anatomists and their society.
AIM: Appreciating the contribution of donor-cadavers to medical education is a well observed practice among anatomists. However, the appreciation of their contribution in research and scientific articles remains dubious. We aimed to evaluate how much data anatomists provide about specimens they have used and how frequently anatomists acknowledge their cadavers in published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated all articles performed on human cadaveric specimens that were published in Clinical Anatomy and Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy between January 2011 and December 2015. We evaluated how much data on the demographics, preservation method(s), source, and ethical/legal permissions regarding cadavers were provided. We also evaluated the number of articles that acknowledged donor-cadavers. RESULTS: The majority of articles provided demographic data (age and sex) and preservation method used in the article. The source of the specimens was not mentioned in 45.6 % of the articles. Only 26.2 % of the articles provided a degree of consent and only 32.4 % of the articles reported some form of ethical approval for the study. The cadavers and their families were acknowledged in 17.7 % of the articles. We observed that no standard method for reporting data has been established. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomists should collaborate to create awareness among the scientific community for providing adequate information regarding donor-cadavers, including source and consent. Acknowledging donor-cadavers and/or their families should also be promoted. Scientific articles should be used to create a transparent relationship of trust between anatomists and their society.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anatomy; Cadaver; Guideline; Medical ethics; Research
Authors: Stefan Unger; Unger Stefan; Michael Blauth; Blauth Michael; Werner Schmoelz; Schmoelz Werner Journal: Bone Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Tobias Topp; Thorben Müller; Sebastian Huss; Peter Herbert Kann; Eberhard Weihe; Steffen Ruchholtz; Ralph Peter Zettl Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 3.717