Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31784776›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2020

[On the quality of the external post-mortem examination in cases of fatal head trauma : A comparison of death certificate and forensic autopsy].

K Kronsbein, J Budczies, H Pfeiffer, B Karger, D Wittschieber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Implementation of post-mortem examinations within a large population-based cohort: results from the Hamburg City Health Study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  2. 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.

K KronsbeinInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland.
J BudcziesInstitut für Pathologie, Abteilung Biostatistik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
H PfeifferInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland.
B KargerInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland.
D WittschieberInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland. daniel.wittschieber@med.uni-jena.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Germany it is required by law that basically every type of physician needs to be capable of executing a correct external post-mortem examination of a corpse. In recent years, numerous investigations on external post-mortem examinations repeatedly reported systematic mistakes and erroneous procedures in various clinical and medicolegal case groups. Accordingly, the completion of death certificates is frequently performed incorrectly. As one of the typical unnatural death cases, decedents dying from fatal head trauma (FHT) represent a special autopsy case group, which is expected to be correctly recognized during the primary external post-mortem examination because the external injuries are mostly obvious.

objectiveThe present study aimed at investigating the quality of the external post-mortem examination in medicolegal FHT cases by means of comparison of death certificates and autopsy reports from a 10-year period. MATERIAL AND

methodsIn a retrospective study design all autopsy cases from the Institute of Legal Medicine of the University Hospital Münster in the years 2006-2015 (n = 3611) were analyzed as to the presence of FHT. A total of 328 cases with FHT and the concomitant presence of a death certificate filled out before the autopsy were identified. Subsequently, the cause of death according to the death certificate was compared with the cause of death according to the autopsy. The degree of agreement was classified into six different categories from I to VI. While category I represented a complete lack of agreement, category VI was assigned to cases with full agreement.

resultsIn 58.5% of the cases (category VI) FHT was identified correctly during the external post-mortem examination. In 1.5% of the cases, a completely different cause of death was determined during the external post-mortem examination (category I). In 19.2% of the cases, no cause of death or the statement "unclear" was given as the cause of death in the death certificate (categories II and III). Cross-analyses and intuitive heatmap visualization were generated to identify case constellations with an increased risk for discrepancies. These analyses revealed that among all discrepant cases (categories I-V), falls were found significantly more often than in the nondiscrepant cases (p < 0.01), especially falls of women older than 57 years (median age of women) or falls considered as accidents by the examiner. In addition, traffic-associated FHT of men older than 44.5 years (median age of men) was identified more frequently in the external post-mortem examination.

conclusionDespite the fact that FHT should be a cause of death that is comparably easy to identify during external post-mortem examination, more than one third of the cases were not sufficiently recognized. Therefore, special attention must still be paid to certain case constellations during the external post-mortem examination. Typical examples of such cases are burned bodies, cases of advanced putrefaction and falls.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAgedAutopsyCause of DeathCraniocerebral TraumaDeath CertificatesFemaleForensic MedicineForensic PathologyGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesAnalysis of discrepanciesCraniocerebral traumaDeath certificateExternal post-mortem examinationForensic autopsy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.