ReviewAcademic forensic pathology2016
Postmortem Changes as Documented in Postmortem Computed Tomography Scans.
Review in Academic forensic pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifaceted Preprocessing Optimization for Post-Mortem Radiomics Analysis: A Pilot Study on Forensic Age Estimation Using Proximal Femur Radiomics.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Potential utility of postmortem CT-based classification as a practical pre-autopsy assessment tool for hepatic steatosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Differentiating ante-mortem from post-mortem findings on fetal and pediatric post-mortem imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- The current state of forensic imaging - post mortem imaging.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- Post mortem computed tomography is highly sensitive for pyelonephritis. A radiologic-pathologic correlation series.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2022Article
- Postmortem computed tomography differentiation between intraperitoneal decomposition gas and pneumoperitoneum.International journal of legal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErrata.2017
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The benefits and uses of postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) have been well documented in the forensic pathology and radiology literature in recent years and research into its utility continue in earnest. Opinions and policies regarding who actually interprets the PMCT scans vary between institutions, but in general, scans will be read by a forensic pathologist, a clinical radiologist, or a clinical radiologist with a special interest or training in postmortem imaging. Differences between clinical computed tomography scans and PMCT scans have been well documented and knowledge of these differences, typically those due to postmortem changes, is essential to the reader of the PMCT scan so as to minimize the risk of misinterpretation and, potentially, misdiagnoses.
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.