ArticleDer Pathologe2008
[Evaluation of the clinical utility of autopsy: an investigation at the Institute of Pathology, University Hospital of Leipzig].
Article in Der Pathologe, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Adult autopsies during the past decade in Germany : Data from two university hospitals].Der Pathologe · 2017Article
- [Autopsy rates in Germany].Der Pathologe · 2017Article
- [Autopsy-a procedure of medical history?].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014Review
- [Proposals for standardization of autopsy reports].Der Pathologe · 2014Article
- [Autopsy as a tool for quality assurance: Leipzig].Der Pathologe · 2011Article
- [Clinical autopsies. Practical approach, legal foundations and ethical considerations].Der Pathologe · 2010Article
- [Autopsies 2010. Is death still teaching the living?].Der Pathologe · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study of autopsies performed in our institute was to investigate whether clinical requirements had been met and specific clinical questions answered.
methodWith each autopsy report, a questionnaire was sent to the clinic where the patient had died. The clinicians evaluated how often additional diagnoses were made and whether these were clinically relevant.
resultsSeventy-two percent of all autopsies resulted in further diagnoses. Clinicians estimated that these could have influenced their clinical management in 36% of cases. Weaknesses in interdisciplinary cooperation were uncovered and solved.
conclusionThe great benefit of the autopsies conducted in our institute was demonstrated. The results emphasise once again the importance of autopsy for quality assurance in clinical medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.