ArticleDer Pathologe2017
[Adult autopsies during the past decade in Germany : Data from two university hospitals].
Article in Der Pathologe, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autopsy rates and diagnostic errors in a Swiss community hospital: a ten-year retrospective analysis.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025Article
- [Legal and organizational aspects of autopsy in Germany].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- [Development and progress of the National Autopsy Network (NATON)].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Cause of Death in Patients in Radiation Oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Implementation of modern tools in autopsy practice-the way towards contemporary postmortal diagnostics.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019Article
- [History of the anatomical and clinical autopsy].Der Pathologe · 2019Review
- Post-Mortem Examination as a Quality Improvement Instrument.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical autopsy is the ultimate medical service for a patient and plays a crucial role in the education of physicians and other medical personnel, as well as in the context of quality control. Nevertheless, the number of autopsies is constantly decreasing. Numerous factors, such as the personal attitude of relatives and also clarification of relatives, as well as the increasing application of imaging methods while the patient is still alive, play a central role in this decline.
objectiveThis study aimed to demonstrate the development of autopsy services over the past decade in two university hospitals in Germany and therefore to underline the importance of this investigation procedure in pathology. MATERIAL AND
methodsAutopsy reports between the years 2005 and 2014 from 2 university institutes of pathology were analyzed regarding a diverse dataset, including age and sex of the deceased as well as the clinical and pathological causes of death.
resultsThe data showed that the number of autopsies has continuously decreased over the past decade; however, the distribution of characteristics of the deceased remained relatively stable. In this cohort the clinically assumed cause of death differed from the pathological cause of death in 6% of the autopsies. Frequently occurring discrepant diagnoses were cardiac tamponade, aortic dissection and endocarditis/myocarditis. DISCUSSION: Our results show that, despite significant improvements in imaging methods, findings do not yield more accurate results than does autopsy. This underscores once again the need to encourage the performance of this final medical act on patients.
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.