Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: Live tissue training (LTT), use of a living anaesthetized animal to practice surgical skills, is a continuing practice, despite controversy and ethical concern. The scientific literature appears polarized in terms of supporting or refuting the practice. This bibliometric analysis of the literature maps and explores the academic conversation regarding LTT including potential influences associated with authorship.
Method: Literature identified via the process conducted during a previously published systematic review was used for analysis. 84 literature sources were included. Bibliometric data were manually extracted for analysis, and visually mapped.
Results: The scientific conversation about LTT use in trauma is centered on surgery, trauma and emergency medicine specialties, published in clinical journals, with significant influence noted from military authors and organizations. Few authors published work in simulation or education-based journals. Publications are considered to be generally supportive of, or ambivalent to, the use of LTT; those with notable objections to LTT tended to be affiliated to animal activist organizations.
Conclusion: There is academic conversation apparent within the literature, in the form of citations, although this is used to affirm or rebuke a given perspective, rather than engage with, or learn from, the content. There is potential benefit to increased interactivity between researchers. The conversation could also be informed by authors broadening the outlook to wider medical educational literature and other disciplines, rather than focusing on application to clinical training, to improve trauma education for all, regardless of modality.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.09.014 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!