Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30793022›Full record

ArticleAcademic pathology

Autopsy Standardized Mortality Review: A Pilot Study Offering a Methodology for Improved Patient Outcomes.

C A Early, M G F Gilliland, K L Kelly, W R Oliver, P J Kragel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic pathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

5 authors.

C A EarlyDepartment of Pathology, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9924-837X
M G F GillilandDepartment of Pathology, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.
K L KellyDepartment of Pathology, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.
W R OliverRegional Forensic Center, Knoxville, TN, USA.
P J KragelDepartment of Pathology, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A standardized mortality review of hospital autopsies identified discrepancies between clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings, unexpected deaths, adequacy of diagnostic workup, presence of adverse event, and type of a quality issue if present. The standardized review elements were chosen based on a review of quality metrics commonly used by hospitals. The review was completed by the pathologist based on their initial autopsy findings. The final autopsy report was later reviewed to confirm the initial review findings. Major discrepancies in diagnosis were categorized as class I or II based on the modified Goldman criteria. Ninety-six hospital autopsy cases from January 2015 to February 2018 were included in the study. The overall major discrepancy rate was 27%. Class I discrepancies, where a diagnosis found at autopsy might have improved survival had it been made premortem, were identified in 16% of cases. Categories associated with increased discrepancy rates included unexpected deaths, inadequate workup, abnormal labs or imaging not addressed, and certain quality issues. Deaths not expected at admission but expected at the time of death, those with adverse events, those within 48 hours of a procedure, those within 48 hours of admission, those with physician-specific quality issues, and those with system or process issues were not significantly related to diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

autopsy ratediagnostic discrepancymortality reviewquality assuranceunexpected mortality

Identifiers

PMID30793022
PMCPMC6376500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.