ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2014
[Autopsy-a procedure of medical history?].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The autopsy at the time of SARS-CoV-2: Protocol and lessons.Annals of diagnostic pathology · 2020Article
- [History of the anatomical and clinical autopsy].Der Pathologe · 2019Review
- Warfarin anticoagulation in acute type A aortic dissection survivors (WATAS).Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2017Article
- [Autopsy rates in Germany].Der Pathologe · 2017Article
- [Adult autopsies during the past decade in Germany : Data from two university hospitals].Der Pathologe · 2017Article
- Computerized Tomography Scanning and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Will Terminate the Era of the Autopsy - A Hypothesis.Journal of Cancer · 2016Article
- New prognostic score for the prediction of 30-day outcome in spontaneous supratentorial cerebral haemorrhage.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- [Proposals for standardization of autopsy reports].Der Pathologe · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An autopsy is an important tool of quality assurance in clinical medicine. It serves to determine the exact cause of death, unravel unexpected complications of disease processes including adverse or any other effects of treatment as well as to validate the official mortality statistics. An autopsy also makes an important contribution to training medical students and physicians; however, the rate of clinical autopsies has been declining drastically for decades, the causes being manifold. Lack of interest among clinicians, mainly due to inadequate knowledge of the advantages of autopsy seems to play a special role. The lack of reasonable reimbursement has also been discussed as another possible cause. In order to counteract this negative trend, efforts should be made to work on the awareness of medical students and young clinicians so that an autopsy is perceived as a general measure of quality assurance and physician self-control. Furthermore, a realistic reimbursement of financial and personnel expense is necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23417503What 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.