ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2012
Differences in investigations of sudden unexpected deaths in young people in a nationwide setting.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sudden unexpected cardiac death among the young (5 to 40 years) in Switzerland between 2011 and 2019: incidence and autopsy rate.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- External post-mortem examination in virtual reality-scalability of a monocentric application.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Forensic autopsies in Norway 1996-2017: A retrospective study of factors associated with deaths undergoing forensic autopsy.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2022Article
- Establishment of two forensic medicine OSCE stations on the subject of external post-mortem examination.International journal of legal medicine · 2018Article
- Gender differences in sudden cardiac death in the young-a nationwide study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInherited disease may be causative in many young sudden unexpected death cases. Autopsy is essential in the counselling of the bereaved, as the family of the victim may be at risk too. In a nationwide setting operating under the same set of laws, we hypothesized that regional differences exist in the investigation of young persons dying suddenly and unexpectedly. METHODS AND
resultsAll deaths in persons aged 1-35 years in Denmark in 2000-2006 were included. Death certificates were read independently by two physicians. External examination as well as autopsy status was retrieved. Significant regional differences were found regarding external examinations and autopsy frequencies. Ratios of conducted external examinations varied between 63% and 93% (p = 0.004). Autopsy ratios varied between 60% and 88% (p = 0.001). In urban areas, external examinations and autopsies were more often conducted than in rural areas. In East Denmark, there were more external examinations resulting in a forensic autopsy, and there was a higher overall autopsy rate compared to West Denmark.
conclusionDespite operating under the same set of laws, we document significant regional differences in forensic investigations of young persons suffering a sudden unexpected death. This is probably not unique for Denmark although no data exist to confirm that. The results are worrying and call for a revision of the way these deaths are handled. Mandatory autopsy in sudden unexpected death in young persons is warranted as a thorough investigation of the death may help the clinician in guidance of the relatives in relation to hereditary diseases.
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.