Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29675642›Full record

GuidelineEuropean journal of pediatrics2018

Dutch guideline for clinical foetal-neonatal and paediatric post-mortem radiology, including a review of literature.

L J P Sonnemans, M E M Vester, E E M Kolsteren, J J H M Erwich, P G J Nikkels, P A M Kint, R R van Rijn, W M Klein, Dutch post-mortem imaging guideline group

Open access · bronzeAbstract readPractice GuidelineReview
In one paragraph

Guideline in European journal of pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. The current state of forensic imaging - post mortem imaging.International journal of legal medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Post-mortem perinatal imaging: what is the evidence?The British journal of radiology · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

L J P SonnemansDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
M E M VesterDepartment of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.e.vester@amc.uva.nl.
E E M KolsterenKnowledge Institute of Medical Specialists, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J J H M ErwichDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
P G J NikkelsDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P A M KintDepartment of Radiology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
R R van RijnDepartment of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
W M KleinDepartment of Radiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Dutch post-mortem imaging guideline group
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLNetherlands Forensic Institute · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical post-mortem radiology is a relatively new field of expertise and not common practice in most hospitals yet. With the declining numbers of autopsies and increasing demand for quality control of clinical care, post-mortem radiology can offer a solution, or at least be complementary. A working group consisting of radiologists, pathologists and other clinical medical specialists reviewed and evaluated the literature on the diagnostic value of post-mortem conventional radiography (CR), ultrasonography, computed tomography (PMCT), magnetic resonance imaging (PMMRI), and minimally invasive autopsy (MIA). Evidence tables were built and subsequently a Dutch national evidence-based guideline for post-mortem radiology was developed. We present this evaluation of the radiological modalities in a clinical post-mortem setting, including MIA, as well as the recently published Dutch guidelines for post-mortem radiology in foetuses, neonates, and children. In general, for post-mortem radiology modalities, PMMRI is the modality of choice in foetuses, neonates, and infants, whereas PMCT is advised in older children. There is a limited role for post-mortem CR and ultrasonography. In most cases, conventional autopsy will remain the diagnostic method of choice.

conclusionBased on a literature review and clinical expertise, an evidence-based guideline was developed for post-mortem radiology of foetal, neonatal, and paediatric patients. What is Known: • Post-mortem investigations serve as a quality check for the provided health care and are important for reliable epidemiological registration. • Post-mortem radiology, sometimes combined with minimally invasive techniques, is considered as an adjunct or alternative to autopsy. What is New: • We present the Dutch guidelines for post-mortem radiology in foetuses, neonates and children. • Autopsy remains the reference standard, however minimal invasive autopsy with a skeletal survey, post-mortem computed tomography, or post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging can be complementary thereof.

Indexed as

Cause of DeathMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyAdolescentAutopsyChildChild, PreschoolFetal DeathHumansInfantInfant, NewbornNetherlandsRadiographyAutopsyFoetalNeonatalPaediatricPost-mortemRadiology

Identifiers

PMID29675642
PMCPMC5958158
OpenAlexW2800287677

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.