ReviewDer Pathologe2017
[Clinical autopsies from a medical ethics perspective].
Review in Der Pathologe, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Legal and organizational aspects of autopsy in Germany].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Verbal Autopsy as a Tool for Defining Causes of Death in Specific Healthcare Contexts: Study of Applicability through a Traditional Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Does the medical autopsy still have a place in the current diagnostic process? A 6-year retrospective study in two French University hospitals.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2019Article
- [Autopsy rates in Germany].Der Pathologe · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutopsy quotas in Germany are persistently low. By way of providing an explanation, the (ethical) reservations of the general population against autopsies are presented.
objectiveNormative assessment of clinical autopsies, elaboration of ethically relevant arguments for and against autopsies and review of the suspected reservations of the general population. MATERIAL AND
methodsReanalysis of the literature, review of qualitative and quantitative studies on the subject field and discussion of the verified ethical argumentation figures.
resultsHistorical prejudices (e.g. recruitment practice, popular belief and religious reservations) have long been inhibiting the acceptance of clinical autopsies. The current discussion on clinical autopsy is often focused on normative arguments and while autopsy critics primarily argue from an individual ethical perspective, autopsy advocates primarily argue from a social ethics viewpoint. Quantitative studies, however, prove that the majority of the population today has no (ethical) reservations against autopsies.
conclusionAlthough most reasons for the persistently low autopsy rate are primarily structural and motivational, some normative implications relating to these aspects remain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28779216What 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.