Exploring the Scientific Conversation Regarding Live Tissue Training in Trauma Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Autor: Swain CS; Department of Learning, Informatics, Management & Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Academic Department of Military Surgery & Trauma, Royal Centre of Defence Medicine (RCDM), Birmingham, UK. Electronic address: cara.swain@ki.se., Cohen HML; HQ Army Medical Services Support Unit, Camberley, UK., Helgesson G; Department of Learning, Informatics, Management & Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden., Rickard RF; Academic Department of Military Surgery & Trauma, Royal Centre of Defence Medicine (RCDM), Birmingham, UK., Karlgren K; Department of Learning, Informatics, Management & Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Research, Education, Development and Innovation, Stockholm, Sweden; Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of surgical education [J Surg Educ] 2024 Dec; Vol. 81 (12), pp. 103295. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Oct 07.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.09.014
Abstrakt: 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.
(Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: