An update on the standardized reporting of information on human cadaver and body donor utilization in prominent clinical journals in different fields between 2020 and 2024.

IF 4.7 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Latif Saglam, Ali Ozan Oztarhan, Mehmet Guven Gunver, Ozcan Gayretli, Aysin Kale, Osman Coskun
{"title":"An update on the standardized reporting of information on human cadaver and body donor utilization in prominent clinical journals in different fields between 2020 and 2024.","authors":"Latif Saglam, Ali Ozan Oztarhan, Mehmet Guven Gunver, Ozcan Gayretli, Aysin Kale, Osman Coskun","doi":"10.1002/ase.70139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Standardized reporting around the use of human cadavers or body donors, including the documentation of ethical considerations, has been a subject of recent debate. In this context, this study aimed to investigate changes over time in the reporting of ethical parameters in leading clinical journals representing various disciplines. All articles involving human cadavers and body donors studies published in Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, Journal of Neurosurgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery between January 2020 and December 2024 were analyzed. Each article was assessed according to the ethical parameters for human cadavers and body donors, as reported and suggested by prior research. The extent to which the articles provided information on biological characteristics, preservation method(s), source, and ethical/legal permissions was recorded. From the assessed articles, 41.5% of the publications included information on age and sex. The vast majority reported the tissue preservation method (78.5%), while the source of the specimens was omitted in 57% of the articles. Information on informed consent of donors appeared in 24% of the articles, with ethical approval mentioned in 32%. Only 10.5% of the articles acknowledged the cadavers or body donors and their families with gratitude. The results indicate a lack of consistent reporting of ethical parameters. The findings suggest that current publications do not adequately meet previously recommended parameters for reporting research utilizing deceased persons, highlighting the need for clearer journal policies and consistent enforcement to ensure transparency, scientific rigor, and respect for donors.</p>","PeriodicalId":124,"journal":{"name":"Anatomical Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomical Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.70139","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Standardized reporting around the use of human cadavers or body donors, including the documentation of ethical considerations, has been a subject of recent debate. In this context, this study aimed to investigate changes over time in the reporting of ethical parameters in leading clinical journals representing various disciplines. All articles involving human cadavers and body donors studies published in Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, Journal of Neurosurgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery between January 2020 and December 2024 were analyzed. Each article was assessed according to the ethical parameters for human cadavers and body donors, as reported and suggested by prior research. The extent to which the articles provided information on biological characteristics, preservation method(s), source, and ethical/legal permissions was recorded. From the assessed articles, 41.5% of the publications included information on age and sex. The vast majority reported the tissue preservation method (78.5%), while the source of the specimens was omitted in 57% of the articles. Information on informed consent of donors appeared in 24% of the articles, with ethical approval mentioned in 32%. Only 10.5% of the articles acknowledged the cadavers or body donors and their families with gratitude. The results indicate a lack of consistent reporting of ethical parameters. The findings suggest that current publications do not adequately meet previously recommended parameters for reporting research utilizing deceased persons, highlighting the need for clearer journal policies and consistent enforcement to ensure transparency, scientific rigor, and respect for donors.

2020年至2024年不同领域著名临床期刊上人类尸体和遗体捐献者利用信息标准化报告的最新情况。
关于使用人类尸体或遗体捐献者的标准化报告,包括伦理考虑的文件,一直是最近争论的主题。在此背景下,本研究旨在调查代表不同学科的领先临床期刊伦理参数报道随时间的变化。分析了2020年1月至2024年12月期间发表在《临床骨科与相关研究》、《神经外科杂志》和《整形与重建外科》上的所有涉及人类尸体和遗体捐赠者的文章。根据先前研究的报告和建议,根据人类尸体和尸体捐赠者的伦理参数对每篇文章进行评估。记录文章提供的生物学特性、保存方法、来源和伦理/法律许可等信息的程度。在评估的文章中,41.5%的出版物包含年龄和性别信息。绝大多数报道了组织保存方法(78.5%),而57%的文章省略了标本来源。24%的文章中出现了捐赠者知情同意的信息,32%的文章中提到了伦理批准。只有10.5%的文章对尸体或遗体捐赠者及其家属表示感谢。结果表明缺乏一致的伦理参数报告。研究结果表明,目前的出版物不能充分满足先前建议的使用死者进行研究报告的参数,强调需要更明确的期刊政策和一致的执行,以确保透明度、科学严谨性和对捐赠者的尊重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anatomical Sciences Education
Anatomical Sciences Education Anatomy/education-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
39.70%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Anatomical Sciences Education, affiliated with the American Association for Anatomy, serves as an international platform for sharing ideas, innovations, and research related to education in anatomical sciences. Covering gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neurosciences, the journal addresses education at various levels, including undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, allied health, medical (both allopathic and osteopathic), and dental. It fosters collaboration and discussion in the field of anatomical sciences education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信