Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30375329›Full record

ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2018

Post-Mortem Examination as a Quality Improvement Instrument.

Christian Wittekind, Tanja Gradistanac

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Legal and organizational aspects of autopsy in Germany].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Christian WittekindInstitute of Pathology, Leipzig University Hospital.
Tanja Gradistanac

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutopsies are considered an important quality assurance instrument in medicine, yet autopsy rates in many countries have been declining for many years. The proper role of the post-mortem examination in modern medicine is a matter deserving of study.

methodsThis review is based on a selective search of the literature for publications on the role of autopsies as a quality assurance instrument.

resultsMultiple studies have revealed substantial rates of discrepancy between pre- and post-mortem diagnoses, with reported rates lying in the range of 10% to 40%. The frequen- cy of so-called Goldman I erroneous diagnoses, i.e., those that are determined at autopsy and might have influenced the patient's survival, ranges from 2.4% to 10.7%. It can be as- sumed that the rate of serious diagnostic errors revealed by autopsy would fall if autopsy rates were to rise. Independently of the above-mentioned studies, a large-scale study of data from the period 1988-2008 revealed a decline in the rate of Goldman I erroneous diagnoses by more than half. The qualitative effects of autopsies, however, are difficult to measure. At present, imaging studies and minimally invasive or endoscopic diagnostic procedures can be performed post mortem as well, but the available studies show that these methods do not yet suffice to enable a coherent pathogenetic classification of disease processes.

conclusionAutopsies should still be performed in the interest of quality assurance in medicine. Uniform standards in the performance and reporting of autopsies could lead to im- provement in the use of the data acquired through them.

Indexed as

AutopsyCause of DeathHumansQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID30375329
PMCPMC6224542

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.