Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34677794›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2021

Factors related to absence of toxicological investigation following fatal injury: a retrospective quantitative review of Coronial records in New Zealand.

Luke Nie, Gabrielle Davie, Rebbecca Lilley

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Luke NieDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Gabrielle DavieDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. gabrielle.davie@otago.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5466-5364
Rebbecca LilleyDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3901-2880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe accuracy of cause of death certification is strongly influenced by the quality of post mortem investigations (autopsies). In New Zealand, this can include toxicological investigation at the discretion of the Coroner. Little is known both within New Zealand and internationally about potential selection biases related to Coronial cases not undergoing toxicology investigation.

methodsA retrospective review of eligible injury-related deaths referred to a Coroner in New Zealand in 2014 was undertaken. Using data collected from the Australasian National Coronial Information System and New Zealand's Mortality Collection, descriptive analyses were undertaken to understand patterns related to toxicology report requests and patterns within toxicology reports.

resultsIn New Zealand in 2014, 25% of 744 Coronial cases for fatal injury in those under 85 years of age did not have corresponding toxicological reports. Reports were more likely to be absent in females (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 1.7, 95%CI 1.0, 2.7), and in decedents aged under 15 and over 65 years (aOR 11.0 and 4.1 respectively). More than half (56%, 95% CI 45%, 67%) of the deaths due to falls did not receive toxicological investigation.

conclusionBetter understanding of selection biases in Coronial processes helps inform policymakers, researchers, and practitioners of the limitations of available toxicological evidence.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsCoroners and Medical ExaminersAdolescentAgedAutopsyCause of DeathFemaleHumansMaleNew ZealandRetrospective StudiesCoronerInjuryMortalityToxicology

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.