To date there has been no study reflecting the perceptions of first-year medical students on Eduard Pernkopf's atlas, particularly during their study of gross anatomy and prior to coursework in medical ethics. We present a discussion of Pernkopf's Atlas: Topographical Anatomy of Man from the perspective of U.S. medical students, and sought to determine whether medical students view Pernkopf's Topographical Anatomy of Man as a resource of greater accuracy, detail, and potential educational utility as compared to Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy.
The entire first-year class at Drexel University College of Medicine (265 students) was surveyed at approximately the midpoint of their gross anatomy course and 192 responses were collected (72% response rate).
Of these, 176 (95%) were unaware of the existence of Pernkopf's atlas. Another 71% of students found the Pernkopf atlas more likely complete and accurate, whereas 76% thought the Netter atlas more useful for learning (p <.001). When presented with a hypothetical scenario in which the subjects used in creating Pernkopf's atlas were donated, or unclaimed, but with knowledge that Pernkopf was an active member of the Nazi party, 133 students (72%) retained their original position (p=.001). About 94% desired discussion of Pernkopf within a medical school bioethics course. The relationship between level of self-reported knowledge and whether or not students would advocate removal of the atlas was statistically significant (p=.013).
Discussing ethical violations in medical history, especially the Pernkopf atlas, must attain a secure place in medical school curricula, and more specifically, within a bioethics course.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 August 2019.
All research outputs
#25,770,458
of 32,051,844 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger
#515
of 700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,052
of 341,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,051,844 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 341,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.
