Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27875530›Full record

Observational studyPLoS medicine2016

Validity of a Minimally Invasive Autopsy for Cause of Death Determination in Adults in Mozambique: An Observational Study.

Paola Castillo, Miguel J Martínez, Esperança Ussene, Dercio Jordao, Lucilia Lovane, Mamudo R Ismail, Carla Carrilho, Cesaltina Lorenzoni, Fabiola Fernandes, Rosa Bene and 15 more

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

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

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

25 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Paola CastilloISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Miguel J MartínezISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Esperança UsseneDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.
Dercio JordaoDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.
Lucilia LovaneDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.
Mamudo R IsmailDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.
Carla CarrilhoDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.
Cesaltina LorenzoniDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.
Fabiola FernandesDepartment of Pathology, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6449-7779
Rosa BeneDepartment of Medicine, Maputo Central Hospital, Maputo, Mozambique.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8528-4350
Antonio PalharesFundação de Medicina Tropical Doutor Heitor Viera Dourado, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9409-7322
Luiz FerreiraFundação de Medicina Tropical Doutor Heitor Viera Dourado, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Marcus LacerdaFundação de Medicina Tropical Doutor Heitor Viera Dourado, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
Inacio MandomandoCentro de Investigação em Saúde de Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique.
Jordi VilaISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Juan Carlos HurtadoISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9519-6082
Khátia MunguambeCentro de Investigação em Saúde de Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique.
Maria MaixenchsISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Ariadna SanzISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6648-7438
Llorenç QuintóISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Eusebio MaceteCentro de Investigação em Saúde de Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique.
Pedro AlonsoISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Quique BassatISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Clara MenéndezISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Jaume OrdiISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Barcelona Institute for Global Health · ESEduardo Mondlane University · MZManhiça Health Research Centre · MZFundação de Medicina Tropical · BRInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats · ESMaputo Central Hospital · MZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an urgent need to identify tools able to provide reliable information on the cause of death in low-income regions, since current methods (verbal autopsy, clinical records, and complete autopsies) are either inaccurate, not feasible, or poorly accepted. We aimed to compare the performance of a standardized minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) approach with that of the gold standard, the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA), in a series of adults who died at Maputo Central Hospital in Mozambique. METHODS AND

findingsIn this observational study, coupled MIAs and CDAs were performed in 112 deceased patients. The MIA analyses were done blindly, without knowledge of the clinical data or the results of the CDA. We compared the MIA diagnosis with the CDA diagnosis of cause of death. CDA diagnoses comprised infectious diseases (80; 71.4%), malignant tumors (16; 14.3%), and other diseases, including non-infectious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, kidney, and lung diseases (16; 14.3%). A MIA diagnosis was obtained in 100/112 (89.2%) cases. The overall concordance between the MIA diagnosis and CDA diagnosis was 75.9% (85/112). The concordance was higher for infectious diseases and malignant tumors (63/80 [78.8%] and 13/16 [81.3%], respectively) than for other diseases (9/16; 56.2%). The specific microorganisms causing death were identified in the MIA in 62/74 (83.8%) of the infectious disease deaths with a recognized cause. The main limitation of the analysis is that both the MIA and the CDA include some degree of expert subjective interpretation.

conclusionsA simple MIA procedure can identify the cause of death in many adult deaths in Mozambique. This tool could have a major role in improving the understanding and surveillance of causes of death in areas where infectious diseases are a common cause of mortality.

Indexed as

Cause of DeathAdolescentAdultAgedAutopsyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMozambiqueYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27875530
PMCPMC5119723
OpenAlexW2550929752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.