Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22872361›Full record

ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2013

Emergency medicine techniques and the forensic autopsy.

Claas Buschmann, Thomas Schulz, Michael Tsokos, Christian Kleber

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. More interdisciplinary research is needed in forensic medicine.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Claas BuschmannInstitute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Turmstr. 21, Building N, 10559, Berlin, Germany. claas.buschmann@charite.de
Thomas Schulz
Michael Tsokos
Christian Kleber
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DECentre for Higher Education · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emergency medicine measures often have to be carried out under suboptimal conditions in emergency situations and require invasive patient treatment. In the case of a fatal outcome these measures have to be evaluated at autopsy, regarding indications, correct implementation and possible complications. As well, alongside the more familiar procedures--such as endotracheal intubation, insertion of chest drains, external cardiac massage and cannulation of central and peripheral veins--there are alternative techniques being increasingly applied, that include new tools for the management of hemorrhagic shock, drug delivery and alternative airway management devices. On the one hand, all of these measures are essential for the survival and appropriate treatment of the injured and/or sick patient, but on the other hand they can damage the patient and thus contain a significant risk of both medical and forensic relevance for the patient and the physician. In the following review we provide an overview of established, new and alternative techniques for emergency airway management, administration of drugs and management of hemorrhagic shock. The aim is to facilitate the understanding and autopsy evaluation of current emergency medicine techniques.

Indexed as

AutopsyCause of DeathAirway ManagementCardiopulmonary ResuscitationDecompression, SurgicalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug TherapyEmergency MedicineEquipment DesignHumansPostmortem ChangesPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsShock, Hemorrhagic

Identifiers

PMID22872361
OpenAlexW1981056191

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.