Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24403308›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2014

The value of postmortem microbiology cultures.

Stefan Riedel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Utility of postmortem bacterial culture of abdominal organs at autopsy of young calves.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Significant variation in heart valve banking practice.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
    Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefan RiedelThe Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Division of Microbiology, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the inception of evidence-based scientific concepts in medicine in the 19th century, the utility of postmortem microbiologic examinations has been a topic of controversy. For every study describing a lack of correlation between antemortem clinical and laboratory findings and postmortem culture results, there is equal evidence from other studies that indicates at least some limited utility in select cases. While the contributions of autopsies and postmortem microbiologic examinations in the discovery of novel infectious microorganisms are generally appreciated by the medical and scientific societies, the problems of implementing routine procedures in daily autopsy practice clearly relate to the lack of consensus on their broader utility as well as to a lack of regulatory guidelines. This review provides an overview of the literature-based evidence regarding the utility of postmortem microbiologic examinations together with some practical aspects and guidelines for those confronted with the issue of whether to allow or discourage the use of bacteriologic cultures obtained during autopsies.

Indexed as

DiagnosisAutopsyCommunicable DiseasesHumansMicrobiological Techniques

Identifiers

PMID24403308
PMCPMC3993482
OpenAlexW2033201862

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.