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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbiology in minimally invasive autopsy: best techniques to detect infection. ESGFOR (ESCMID study group of forensic and post-mortem microbiology) guidelines.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2021Guideline
- Postmortem Microbiology in Forensic Diagnostics: Interpretation of Infectious Causes of Death and Emerging Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Postmortem microbiological sampling: a prospective ESGFOR-supported study on relevance, timing, and site selection.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025Article
- From Fragile Lives to Forensic Truth: Multimodal Forensic Approaches to Pediatric Homicide and Suspect Death.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Potential postmortem microbial biomarkers of infant and younger children death investigation.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- Exploration of sepsis assisting parameters in hospital autopsied-patients: a prospective study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Postmortem Bacteriology in Forensic Autopsies-A Single Center Retrospective Study in Romania.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Post-Mortem Microbiology: Retrospective Analysis of Infections Caused byPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Is There a Role for the Microbiome and Sudden Death? A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The importance of the postmortem interval for the diagnosis of Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome byAutopsy & case reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.