Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32713325›Full record

ReviewGlobal health action2020

The evolution of minimally invasive tissue sampling in postmortem examination: a narrative review.

Christina R Paganelli, Norman J Goco, Elizabeth M McClure, Kathryn K Banke, Dianna M Blau, Robert F Breiman, Clara Menéndez, Natalia Rakislova, Quique Bassat

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health action, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. [High diagnostic discrepancy in infectious diseases detected by autopsy].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Article
  5. US Immigrants and their Knowledge of their Family History of Cancer: A Population-Based Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  6. [Minimally invasive autopsies-Methods and limitations].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. "Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Christina R PaganelliRTI International , Seattle, WA, USA.
Norman J GocoRTI International , Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Elizabeth M McClureRTI International , Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Kathryn K BankeCenters for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dianna M BlauCenters for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, GA, USA.
Robert F BreimanDepartment of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University , Atlanta, GA, USA.
Clara MenéndezISGlobal Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Hospital Clínic - Universitat de Barcelona , Barcelona, Spain.
Natalia RakislovaISGlobal Department of Pathology Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Hospital Clínic - Universitat de Barcelona , Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5030-3526
Quique BassatISGlobal Barcelona Institute for Global Health, Hospital Clínic - Universitat de Barcelona , Barcelona, Spain.
Barcelona Institute for Global Health · ESRTI International · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USEmory University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBecause of low acceptance rates and limited capacity, complete diagnostic autopsies (CDAs) are seldom conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There have been growing investments in less-invasive postmortem examination methodologies, including needle-based autopsy, known as minimally invasive autopsy or minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS). MITS has been shown to be a feasible and informative alternative to CDA for cause of death investigation and mortality surveillance purposes.

objectiveThe aim of this narrative review is to describe historical use and evolution of needle-based postmortem procedures as a tool to ascertain the cause of death, especially in LMICs.

methodsKey word searches were conducted in PubMed and EBSCO in 2018 and 2019. Abstracts were reviewed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full publications were reviewed for those abstracts meeting inclusion criteria and a start set was established. A snowball search methodology was used and references for all publications meeting inclusion criteria were manually reviewed until saturation was reached.

resultsA total of 1,177 publications were initially screened. Following an iterative review of references, 79 publications were included in this review. Twenty-nine studies, published between 1955 and 2019, included MITS as part of postmortem examination. Of the publications included, 76% (60/79) have publication dates after 2010. More than 60% of all publications included addressed MITS in LMICs, and a total of nine publications compared MITS with CDA.

conclusionsAlthough there is evidence of less-invasive postmortem sampling starting in the 1800s, more structured needle-based postmortem examination publications started to appear in the mid-twentieth century. Early studies were mostly conducted in high-income countries but starting in 2010 the number of publications began to increase, and a growing number of studies were conducted in LMICs. Initial studies in LMICs were disease-specific but since 2015 have evolved to include more expansive postmortem examination.

Indexed as

AutopsyCause of DeathHumansIncomePovertyautopsyless-invasive autopsyminimally invasive autopsyneedle-based autopsyPercutaneous autopsy

Identifiers

PMID32713325
PMCPMC7480574
OpenAlexW3046160071

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.