↓ Skip to main content

Cadaveric anatomy in the future of medical education: What is the surgeons view?

Overview of attention for article published in Anatomical Sciences Education, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cadaveric anatomy in the future of medical education: What is the surgeons view?
Published in
Anatomical Sciences Education, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/ase.1560
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmad Hassan Sheikh, Denis S Barry, Humberto Gutierrez, John F Cryan, Gerard W O'Keeffe

Abstract

Reduced contact hours and access to cadaveric/prosection-based teaching in medical education has led to many doctors reporting inadequate anatomical knowledge of junior doctors. This trend poses significant risk, but perhaps most of all in surgery. Here the opinions of surgeons regarding current and future teaching practices in anatomy were surveyed. Eighty surgeons were invited to complete a questionnaire, 48 of which were returned for a 60% response rate. Respondents were asked to select the method they viewed as the best method of teaching anatomy. Sixty-five percent of respondents selected "cadaver/prosection demonstration" (P < 0.001), while 55% of respondents, thought it should be enhanced in anatomy education (P < 0.001). Finally, respondents were asked to select what form of imaging should be further explored in anatomical education. Seventy-five percent of respondents' selected computerized tomography (CT) imaging compared to other imaging modalities (P < 0.001). These data show that surgeons view cadaveric/prosection-based teaching as the most beneficial method of teaching anatomy and that it should be enhanced in medical education. Furthermore, surgeons suggested that CT should be further integrated into anatomical education. These findings support the continued use of cadaveric/prosection-based teaching, and will help inform the integration of radiology in the design and implementation of anatomy teaching in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 121 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Student > Master 13 10%
Researcher 10 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Lecturer 8 6%
Other 35 28%
Unknown 29 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 5%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 33 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,206,185
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Anatomical Sciences Education
#98
of 705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,335
of 268,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anatomical Sciences Education
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.