The relevance of anatomical variations to South African clinicians: Questionnaire & Scoping review

Abstract

Background and aim: Anatomical variation research has been conducted extensively by anatomists for centuries and is meant to aid and improve clinical practice. However, a dearth of literature is available to understand if clinicians are receiving sufficient exposure and training on these variants in their specific specialization. Many malpractice claims could be directly tied to a lack of anatomical knowledge but even more so variant anatomy. In addition, no study has interrogated the use of reliability techniques in anatomical variant studies as a measure of repeatability and reproducibility of the results being generated from these studies. Hence the aim of the current study was to investigate the perceptions of South African clinicians (surgeons & radiologists) on the relevance of and exposure to anatomical variants in both medical training and clinical practice Methods: A validated, anonymous, self-administered questionnaire was disseminated to clinicians (surgeons and radiologists) practicing in South Africa through professional societies, SA universities and private and public clinics. Relationships between professional details, exposure to variations in practice and perceived value of variant research of clinicians were investigated statistically. In addition to test the second aim on the use of reliability techniques a scoping review was conducted to assess the reliability of abdominal arterial variation studies. The steps were conducted using the JBI Scoping Review manual. Results: A total of 52 clinicians responded surgeons (n=36) and radiologist (n=16). Most clinicians (90.4%) acknowledged the necessity of anatomical knowledge in medical training. Many clinicians encountered variants in clinical practice often (30.8%), or sometimes (25%). However, most clinicians (65.4%) only engaged with anatomical variant research occasionally (26.9%) or almost never (17.3%). Findings indicated that the more exposure to variants the more clinicians are sourcing variant research articles. Clinicians used more scientific manuscripts than case reports for interacting with variation studies. The major finding of the iii scoping review indicates that the majority (75.4%) of variant research studies had no reliability (repeatability and reproducibility) within the methodology. Conclusion: There is discordance in clinicians interacting with variant research especially when anatomical studies are aimed to generate conclusion for safer clinical practice. Concurrently, majority of variant research has been devoid of reliability measures which offer sound input to medical research and practice.