ReviewAcademic forensic pathology2018
Autopsy Biosafety: Recommendations for Prevention of Meningococcal Disease.
Review in Academic forensic pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping Biological Risks Related to Necropsy Activities: Old Concerns and Novel Issues for the Safety of Health Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- COVID-19: Postmortem Diagnostic and Biosafety Considerations.The American journal of forensic medicine and pathology · 2020Article
- No-Touch Automated Room Disinfection after Autopsies of Exhumed Corpses.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs invasive meningococcal disease progresses rapidly, often affects youth, and has a fairly high mortality rate, such cases are likely to fall under medical examiner/coroner (ME/C) jurisdiction. Morgue personnel may be at risk of contracting secondary meningococcal disease. We review the current scientific literature regarding
methodsA PubMed search utilizing applicable medical subject heading terms was performed retrieving articles for review from the preceding two decades. Pertinent current guidelines from multiple national organizations were also retrieved.
resultsInvasive meningococcal disease is transmitted by direct contact with large respiratory droplets or oral secretions. While a surgical mask would normally provide adequate protection from large droplet spread, it does not prevent inhalation of smaller aerosolized particles such as those generated at autopsy. Prosectors are advised to routinely wear N-95 respirator masks or powered respirator hoods. All published cases of secondary meningococcal disease transmission to healthcare workers invariably arose in scenarios in which face masks/respirators were not employed; none of these cases involved meningococcal disease transmission to ME/C or other morgue staff. DISCUSSION: In the event that no mask-or inadequate coverage such as a surgical mask-is employed during autopsy of a decedent suspected/confirmed to have invasive meningococcal disease, antibiotic prophylaxis is advisable. Assuming appropriate personal protective equipment is utilized, chemoprophylaxis is unnecessary. Routine meningococcal vaccination is not recommended, except for ME/C with specified immunocompromising conditions or traveling to hyperendemic/endemic meningococcal regions.
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.