Kathleen Bubb

The term “clinical anatomy” is widely used in education and research, yet its conceptual boundaries continue to be interpreted in various ways. Prior consensus‐based efforts have emphasized integration, collaboration, and clinical relevance as central features of the field and have provided an important foundation for interdisciplinary engagement. At the same time, ongoing changes in academic structure, medical education, and interdisciplinary biomedical science raise important questions regarding how clinical anatomy can sustain its scientific identity and long‐term relevance. Building upon prior discussions, this article argues that the continued maturation of clinical anatomy depends on the integration of conceptual frameworks with the sustained production of rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scholarly contributions. Historical and contemporary examples alike demonstrate that the influence of clinical anatomy has been shaped through contributions that directly advanced clinical science and practice. Accordingly, continued emphasis on methodological rigor, reproducibility, clinically meaningful contribution, and educational accountability may be essential to the field's future development and relevance.

Andrew T. Casteel, Lauren M. Dumont, Rarinthorn Samrid, Yoko Tabira, Kazzara Raeburn, Kathleen Bubb, Noritaka Komune, Aaron S. Dumont, Miguel Angel Reina, Joe Iwanaga, R. Shane Tubbs. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.25.376

Devendra Shekhawat, Kristen Rizzuto, Rarinthorn Samrid, Chung Yoh Kim, Yoko Tabira, Kazzara Raeburn, Kathleen Bubb, Aaron S. Dumont, Joe Iwanaga, Marios Loukas, Mahindra Kumar Anand, R. Shane Tubbs. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.24.273

Celia V. Mayne, Rarinthorn Samrid, Yoko Tabira, Kazzara Raeburn, Kathleen Bubb, Joe Iwanaga, Samir Anadkat, R. Shane Tubbs. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.24.184

The hallmark of evidence‐based anatomy (EBA) is the anatomical meta‐analysis (AMA). The Critical Appraisal Tool for Anatomical Meta‐Analysis (CATAM) was recently published to enable users to appraise AMAs quickly and effectively. The tool is valuable for students and clinicians who need to judge the quality of AMAs, which informs clinical decision making and results in better patient care. Subjective measures of the tool's face and content validity have been established, but establishing its reliability provides a more objective measure of the instrument's dependability. This study investigated the interrater reliability (IRR) of the CATAM between novice and expert raters. Three graduate students and three professors (two anatomists and one pharmacist) read the original CATAM paper, and then had a post hoc meeting to discuss scoring with the tool. Three recent AMAs (published between 2017 and 2022) were randomly chosen from PubMed, and all six raters scored the papers blindly. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistic was used to calculate the interrater reliability (IRR) between all scores, and then the ICCs between novice and expert scores were compared. Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency) of the CATAM was also calculated (SPSS 25, Armonk, NY). ICC for AMA‐1 was 0.999 (95% CI, 0.997–0.999), p = 0.000, and alpha was 0.999. ICC for AMA‐2 was 0.994 (95% CI, 0.988–0.998), p = 0.000, and alpha was 0.994. ICC for AMA‐3 was 0.998 (95% CI, 0.995–0.999), p = 0.000, and alpha was 0.998. ANOVA showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in mean ICCs between raters. The CATAM is a robust tool with excellent IRR (ICC > 0.990) and internal consistency (alpha > 0.990). No significant difference in ICC scores between novices and experts suggests the tool does not require prior expert knowledge to be effective. Now that the reliability of the CATAM is established, it can be more widely adopted by students and physicians worldwide to evaluate the quality of AMAs. The CATAM offers widespread applicability, and can be adopted in medical education, journal clubs, and clinical seminars to critically evaluate AMAs.

Xander du Plooy, Yuki Kunisada, Juan J. Cardona, Yoko Tabira, Kathleen Carol Bubb, Kazzara Raeburn, Soichiro Ibaragi, Joe Iwanaga, R. Shane Tubbs. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.24.178

Shoulder pain often involves the tendon of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHBT) and the transverse humeral ligament (THL). Traditionally, the THL is considered a ligament that prevents the LHBT from dislocating, but recent studies suggest that it may be part of the subscapularis tendon. This review evaluates the nature of the THL and its overlying structures. We reviewed the literature from PubMed and Scopus through April 2024 and selected seven studies. Four described the THL as a ligament, and three did not. THL measurements ranged from 14 to 21 mm in length and 14 to 17 mm in width. Histology was inconsistent, with some studies suggesting it is more tendon‐like. Clinically, LHBT injuries are associated with rotator cuff injuries. Biomechanical studies, such as those by Kwon et al. (2009), associate the LHBT with subscapularis tendon tears. Accurate diagnosis and treatment of shoulder pain should consider these anatomical variations. The structure covering LHBT in the intertubercular sulcus is most likely the subscapularis tendon, rather than a ligament. Understanding these variations is critical to improving the management of shoulder pain.

Athena Cohen, Chung Yoh Kim, Kazzara Raeburn, Kathleen Bubb, Yoko Tabira, Joe Iwanaga, R. Shane Tubbs. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.24.202