ArticleAcademic forensic pathology2016
Identifying Errors in Forensic Autopsy Reports Using a Novel Web-Based Program.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErrata.2017
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAutopsy reports are often complex, with ample opportunity for errors and inconsistencies. These reports are often scrutinized by both families and attorneys. Identification of errors by proofreading physicians or clerical staff can be improved by utilizing a computer program to examine reports for discrepancies.
methodsA webpage to review demographic consistency, organ descriptions, and pertinent information regarding gunshot wounds was developed to proofread reports. Thirty completed reports were analyzed from the Jefferson County Coroner/Medical Examiner Office. Additionally, a separate individual was instructed to sabotage reports and then determine if the software could detect the alterations.
resultsOf the 30 completed reports analyzed, no errors/omissions were identified; however, these reports were accurate upon manual inspection. Rarely, the computer triggered a warning that an organ should be confirmed if the author used a description that differed from the software's vocabulary (e.g., the author discussed "uterine wall" instead of "uterus"). The webpage detected eight out of ten errors supplied to the five sabotaged cases. These errors ranged from inconsistent age, race, and gender, to incomplete gunshot wound descriptions.
conclusionIdentification of errors by a computer proofreading program can improve autopsy report quality. The webpage has been designed so that additional modules, such as strangulation proofreading, could easily be added. Furthermore, the ability of the software to detect errors will continue to improve as more words are added to its vocabulary. The webpage is freely available and can be adapted to other medical examiner offices needs from the GitHub website.
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.