Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25705288›Full record

ArticleMaedica2014

Clinical or postmortem? The importance of the autopsy; a retrospective study.

Mariana Costache, Anca Mihaela Lazaroiu, Andreea Contolenco, Diana Costache, Simion George, Maria Sajin, Oana Maria Patrascu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maedica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Mariana CostacheDepartment of Pathology, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania ; Department of Pathology, Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, Romania.
Anca Mihaela LazaroiuDepartment of Pathology, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania ; Department of Pathology, Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, Romania.
Andreea ContolencoDepartment of Pathology, Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, Romania.
Diana Costache"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Simion GeorgeDepartment of Pathology, Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, Romania.
Maria SajinDepartment of Pathology, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania ; Department of Pathology, Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, Romania.
Oana Maria PatrascuDepartment of Pathology, Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medicine is continually evolving; the new technologies of diagnosis and treatment continue to improve the life expectancy and lead to new information concerning various pathologies. The autopsy is viewed more and more as an ultimate branch of medicine and used only in extreme cases or for forensic purposes. Nevertheless, many studies, including this one, prove the utility and indispensability of the autopsies, without which a complete and accurate diagnosis cannot be made. Finally, the autopsy followed by histopathological examination of the tissues remains the ultimate and most important step for the apprehension of the diseases and for further evolution of medicine. This study reveals the correspondence rate between the clinical and the postmortem diagnosis, as well as between macroscopic and histopathological diagnosis.

Indexed as

autopsyclinical diagnosiscorrespondence ratepostmortem diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID25705288
PMCPMC4305994

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.