ReviewAcademic forensic pathology2017
Drug Intoxication and the Need to Autopsy: A Diagnosis of Exclusion?
Review in Academic forensic pathology, 2017. 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Death-certificate-recorded autopsy utilization in U.S. intoxication deaths, 2003-2023: National trends, benchmark comparison, and state heterogeneity.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Predicting accidental drug overdose as the cause of fatality in near real-time using the Suspected Potential Overdose Tracker (SPOT): public health implications.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Letter to the Editor.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErrata.2017
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent surge in drug deaths has focused attention on the diagnosis of drug intoxication as a cause of death. In Maryland, the Department of Vital Records has shown an increase from 649 intoxication deaths in 2012 to 1259 in 2015. Preliminary data for 2016 document 1892 of these deaths. Many of the medicolegal death investigation offices in the United States are facing potential loss of accreditation. There is limited capacity to add more staff due to a lack of appropriately trained pathologists and budget constraints. The diagnosis of this intoxication and the need to autopsy all of these cases is a matter of debate, as many death investigation offices look for alternative means to maintain accreditation. The alternative to adding more staff is to reduce the autopsy caseload. Can this be done without compromising the intent of the medical examiner system and the law? Balancing this with being fiscally responsible may be a very real challenge and one that will test many death investigation systems due to this pandemic of drug deaths. If there is a need to reduce the autopsy caseload, it should be in cases other than where the diagnosis is one of exclusion.
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.