Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33464531›Full record

GuidelineForensic science, medicine, and pathology2021

Microbiology in minimally invasive autopsy: best techniques to detect infection. ESGFOR (ESCMID study group of forensic and post-mortem microbiology) guidelines.

Veroniek Saegeman, Marta C Cohen, Julian L Burton, Miguel J Martinez, Natalia Rakislova, Amaka C Offiah, Amparo Fernandez-Rodriguez

Open access · bronzeAbstract readGuidelineReview
In one paragraph

Guideline in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Cost Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling (MITS) Implementation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Veroniek SaegemanClinical Laboratory, Sint-Niklaas, and Infection Control Department, AZ Nikolaas, University Hospitals Leuven, Moerlandstraat 1Herestraat 49, 91003000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0439-0205
Marta C CohenFT. Histopathology Department. Western Bank, Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS, Sheffield, S10 2TH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5534-444X
Julian L BurtonThe Medico-Legal Centre, Watery Street, Sheffield, UK.
Miguel J MartinezISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Barcelona, Spain.
Natalia RakislovaISGlobal, Barcelona Centre for International Health Research (CRESIB), Barcelona, Spain.
Amaka C OffiahDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, Department of Radiology, Academic Unit of Child Health, Sheffield Children's NHS FT, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8991-5036
Amparo Fernandez-RodriguezMicrobiology Laboratory, Biology Department, Instituto Nacional de Toxicología y Ciencias Forenses, Las Rozas de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. amparo.fernandezrodriguez@justicia.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2992-3226
Barcelona Institute for Global Health · ESUniversity of Sheffield · GBAZ Sint-Lucas · BEInstituto Nacional de Toxicología y Ciencias Forenses · ESSheffield Children's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This manuscript aims to: 1) provide specific guidelines on PMM techniques in the setting of minimally invasive autopsy (MIA), both for pathologists collecting samples and for microbiologists advising pathologists and interpreting the results and 2) introduce standardization in PMM sampling at MIA. Post-mortem microbiology (PMM) is crucial to identify the causative organism in deaths due to infection. MIA including the use of post-mortem (PM) computed tomography (CT) and PM magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is increasingly carried out as a complement or replacement for the traditional PM. In this setting, mirroring the traditional autopsy, PMM aims to: detect infectious organisms causing sudden unexpected deaths; confirm clinically suspected but unproven infection; evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial therapy; identify emergent pathogens; and recognize medical diagnostic errors. Meaningful interpretation of PMM results requires careful evaluation in the context of the clinical history, macroscopic and microscopic findings. These guidelines were developed by a multidisciplinary team with experts in various fields of microbiology and pathology on behalf of the ESGFOR (ESCMID - European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases - Study Group of Forensic and Post-mortem Microbiology, in collaboration with the ESP -European Society of Pathology-) based on a literature search and the author's expertise. Microbiological sampling methods for MIA are presented for various scenarios: adults, children, developed and developing countries. Concordance between MIA and conventional invasive autopsy is substantial for children and adults and moderate for neonates and maternal deaths. Networking and closer collaboration among microbiologists and pathologists is vital to maximize the yield of PMM in MIA.

Indexed as

Microbiological TechniquesAutopsyForensic MedicineHumansInfection ControlInfectionsPersonal Protective EquipmentSpecimen HandlingForensic microbiologyForensic samplingInfectionMinimally invasive autopsyPost-mortem microbiologyTraditional autopsy

Identifiers

PMID33464531
PMCPMC7814172
OpenAlexW3122186915

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.