Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21805100›Full record

ArticleDer Pathologe2011

[Autopsies in Switzerland, Germany and Austria: considerations about legal facts and the current situation].

B Tag

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Pathologe, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

B TagRechtswissenschaftliches Institut, Lehrstuhl für Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht und Medizinrecht, zugleich Kompetenzzentrum Medizin-Ethik-Recht Helvetiae (MERH), Universität Zürich, Freiestr. 15, 8032, Zürich, Schweiz. Lst.tag@rwi.uzh.ch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant reasons militate for the implementation of clinical autopsies: On the part of physicians and nurses, there is quality assurance, establishment of legal certainty regarding possible accusations of medical errors and development of treatment methods. On the part of patients and their relatives, there is consolation and relief in cases of unexpected death, insight into genetic dispositions and insurance law concerns, to name only a few. However, a continuing decrease of clinical autopsies can be observed in Switzerland, Germany and Austria. The thesis asserting that the often required informed consent of the deceased during his/her lifetime or of close relatives is a crucial reason for this decrease needs to be called into question due to recent studies. Mainsprings are rather structural reasons, such as the often deficient communication with the patient or close relatives, economic reasons, namely the frequently insufficient remuneration for the clinical autopsy, organizational causes, in particular the repeatedly encountered suboptimal collaboration between the individual departments and the pathology department, the high administrative effort and probably the decreasing appreciation of the clinical autopsy.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonAustriaAutopsyCommunicationDeath, SuddenGermanyHumansInformed ConsentLegal GuardiansMedical ErrorsSwitzerlandUtilization Review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.