Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28236029›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2017

How is post-mortem microbiology appraised by pathologists? Results from a practice survey conducted by ESGFOR.

V Saegeman, M C Cohen, J Alberola, N Ziyade, C Farina, ESCMID Study Group for Forensic and Postmortem Microbiology, G Cornaglia, A Fernández-Rodríguez

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

V SaegemanDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, K.U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Veroniek.saegeman@uzleuven.be.
M C CohenHistopathology Department, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
J AlberolaMicrobiology Service, University Hospital Dr. Peset Valencia, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
N ZiyadePostmortem Mikrobiyoloji Laboratuvarı, Adalet Bakanlığı Adli Tıp Kurumu, Bahçelievler/İstanbul, Turkey.
C FarinaMicrobiology Institute, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
ESCMID Study Group for Forensic and Postmortem Microbiology
G CornagliaDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
A Fernández-RodríguezMicrobiology Laboratory, Biology Department, Instituto Nacional de Toxicología y Ciencias Forenses, Las Rozas de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Universitat de València · ESUniversity of Verona · ITInstituto Nacional de Toxicología y Ciencias Forenses · ESKU Leuven · BEOspedale Papa Giovanni XXIII · ITSheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-mortem microbiology (PMM) is an important tool in forensic pathology, assisting to determine the cause and manner of death. However, there is a lack of standardisation of PMM sampling. In order to get a better insight into the methods used, the available technical options and developmental needs, ESCMID Study Group for Forensic and Postmortem Microbiology (ESGFOR) members designed a survey aimed at pathologists regarding common practices of PMM in clinical and forensic autopsies. Multiple choice questions were developed based on Cumulative Techniques and Procedures in Clinical Microbiology (Cumitech). The questionnaire was sent to pathologists mainly across Europe and Turkey using SurveyMonkey. The survey had 147 respondents. Although all pathologists were aware of the existence of PMM, 39% (19/49) of the participants were not using it. The three main indications for PMM were: (i) clinical suspicion of an infection not confirmed antemortem (83%), (ii) infectious signs at autopsy (83%) and (iii) as part of a standard protocol for foetal/perinatal or paediatric death (67%). Almost 80% of the participants using PMM stated taking 1-10 samples per case. Of the requested examinations, a general bacteriological culture (96%) and a specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for a particular infectious agent (34%) were most popular. The most frequent samples were: heart blood (66%), peripheral femoral blood (49%), spleen (64%) and lung (56%). Eighty-nine percent of the participants considered PMM a useful resource when investigating the cause of death. Although there are some common uses, this survey indicates that there is a need for improvement towards standardising sampling procedures in PMM.

Indexed as

DiagnosisEuropeHumansMicrobiological TechniquesPathologistsPathologySurveys and QuestionnairesTurkey

Identifiers

PMID28236029
OpenAlexW2589875538

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.