Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32605192›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

Clinical-Forensic Autopsy Findings to Defeat COVID-19 Disease: A Literature Review.

Francesco Sessa, Giuseppe Bertozzi, Luigi Cipolloni, Benedetta Baldari, Santina Cantatore, Stefano D'Errico, Giulio Di Mizio, Alessio Asmundo, Sergio Castorina, Monica Salerno and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. COVID-19 autopsies of Istanbul.Irish journal of medical science · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Francesco SessaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0357-8791
Giuseppe BertozziDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8179-1072
Luigi CipolloniDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6464-3249
Benedetta BaldariDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00186 Rome, Italy.
Santina CantatoreDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.
Stefano D'ErricoDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, 34100 Trieste, Italy.
Giulio Di MizioDepartment of Law, Forensic Medicine, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7279-3693
Alessio AsmundoDipartimento di Scienze biomediche, odontoiatriche e delle immagini morfologiche e funzionali, sezione di Medicina Legale, Università di Messina, 98122 Messina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3159-7095
Sergio CastorinaAnatomy, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Advanced Technologies G.F. Ingrassia, University of Catania, 95121 Catania, Italy.
Monica SalernoDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Advanced Technologies "G.F. Ingrassia", University of Catania, 95121 Catania, Italy.
Cristoforo PomaraDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Advanced Technologies "G.F. Ingrassia", University of Catania, 95121 Catania, Italy.
University of Foggia · ITUniversity of Catania · ITMagna Graecia University · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Messina · ITUniversity of Trieste · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 was identified for the first time in China, in December 2019. Confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported around the world; indeed, this infection has been declared a pandemic. Consequently, the scientific community is working hard to gain useful information about the history of this virus, its transmission, diagnosis, clinical features, radiological findings, research and development of candidate therapeutics as well as vaccines. This review aims to analyze the diagnostic techniques used to ascertain the COVID-19 infection, critically reviewing positive points and criticism for forensic implications, obviously including autopsy. Finally, this review proposes a practical workflow to be applied in the management of corpses during this outbreak of the COVID-19 infection, which could be useful in cases of future infectious disease emergencies. Analyzing the diagnostic methods, to date, virus nucleic acid RT-PCR represents the standard method used to ascertain the COVID-19 infection in living subjects and corpses, even if this technique has several criticisms: mainly, the staff should be highly specialized, working in high-throughput settings, able to handle high workloads and aware of health risks and the importance of the results. Thus, IgG/IgM serological tests have been developed, overcoming RT-qPCR duration, costs, and management, not requiring highly trained personnel. Nevertheless, serological tests present problems; the WHO recommends the use of these new point-of-care immunodiagnostic tests only in research settings. Furthermore, nothing has yet been published regarding the possibility of applying these methods during post-mortem investigations. In light of this scenario, in this review, we suggest a flow chart for the pathologist called on to ascertain the cause of death of a subject with historical and clinical findings of COVID-19 status or without any anamnestic, diagnostic, or exposure information. Indeed, the literature data confirmed the analytical vulnerabilities of the kits used for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19, particularly during postmortem examinations. For these reasons, autopsy remains the gold standard method to ascertain the exact cause of death (from or with COVID-19 infection, or other causes), to consequently provide real data for statistical evaluations and to take necessary measures to contain the risks of the infection. Moreover, performing autopsies could provide information on the pathogenesis of the COVID-19 infection with obvious therapeutic implications.

Indexed as

autopsyCOVID-19forensic pathologyimmunohistochemistrypost-mortem examination

Identifiers

PMID32605192
PMCPMC7409028
OpenAlexW3037364366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.