Walocha, Jerzy Andrzej

ABSTRACT Following the introduction of meta‐analytic methodology into anatomical research, anatomical meta‐analyses have increased substantially. However, extremely high statistical heterogeneity is frequently observed in these studies, while its implications remain insufficiently discussed within anatomical research. The present study investigated the current state and patterns of heterogeneity in anatomical meta‐analyses and explored the interpretive implications of heterogeneity in anatomical evidence synthesis. A PubMed search was performed on May 21, 2026, using the title‐based search strategy: ((meta‐analysis[Title]) OR (meta analysis[Title])) AND (anatomy[Title]). Anatomical meta‐analyses focused on human structural anatomy were included. Reported I 2 values were extracted and descriptively analyzed by overall distribution and anatomical category. A total of 132 studies were identified, of which 61 anatomical meta‐analyses with analyzable heterogeneity data were included. The mean reported I 2 value was 95.27% (range 41%–100%), with a median I 2 of 98.77%. Most studies demonstrated extreme heterogeneity, with 86.9% reporting I 2 values exceeding 90%. Category‐specific analysis demonstrated consistently elevated heterogeneity across anatomical systems, including skeletal structures (mean I 2 = 99%), peripheral nerves (mean I 2 = 95%), and vascular anatomy studies (mean I 2 = 94.56%). Despite this, pooled prevalence estimates were frequently reported with highly precise numerical values and narrow confidence intervals. Extreme statistical heterogeneity is highly prevalent across anatomical meta‐analyses and appears to represent a widespread characteristic of anatomical synthesis research rather than an isolated statistical phenomenon. Although such heterogeneity likely reflects genuine biological and methodological variability, pooled anatomical estimates should be interpreted with caution, particularly when highly precise numerical estimates are reported despite substantial interstudy inconsistency. These findings highlight the importance of transparent heterogeneity reporting and anatomically stratified approaches in future anatomical meta‐analyses.

ABSTRACTMost discussions about discrimination and bias in anatomical research papers have been limited to terminology relating to race/ethnicity and gender/sex. However, as editors of anatomical journals, the authors of this article have frequently observed broader instances of potential discrimination and bias within anatomical research. These often stem from differences among authors' backgrounds, traditions, cultures, religions, provenance/origins, and workplace affiliations. In view of the limited discourse on this topic, we seek in this article to establish a consensus among editors of anatomical journals and to propose new Guidelines Against Discrimination and Bias in Anatomical Research Papers (GDBARP). We have identified multiple factors that can contribute to discrimination and bias, underscoring the need for greater awareness and proactive measures. It is imperative in anatomical research to respect authors, reviewers, and editors regardless of their background, culture, traditions, sex, ethnicity, language, religion, or ethical perspectives.

Abstract Myocardial bridges are anatomical entities characterized by myocardium covering segments of coronary arteries. In some patients, the presence of a myocardial bridge is benign and is only incidentally found on autopsy. In other patients, however, myocardial bridges can lead to compression of the coronary artery during systolic contraction and delayed diastolic relaxation, resulting in myocardial ischemia. This ischemia in turn can lead to myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Myocardial bridges have also been linked to an increased incidence of atherosclerosis, which has been attributed to increased shear stress and the presence of vasoactive factors. Other studies however, demonstrated the protective roles of myocardial bridges. In this study, using systematic review and a meta‐analytical approach we investigate the prevalence and morphology of myocardial bridges in both clinical imaging and cadaveric dissections. We also discuss the pathophysiology, clinical significance, and management of these anatomical entities.