ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021
Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling Findings in 12 Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Major Causes of Perinatal and Paediatric Mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia: Adjustment for Selection Bias in the CHAMPS Network.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling Surveillance Alliance-Facilitating the Expansion of Pathology-Based Mortality Surveillance.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS), a postmortem procedure that uses core needle biopsy samples and does not require opening the body, may be a valid alternative to complete autopsy (CA) in highly infectious diseases such as coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). This study aimed to (1) compare the performance of MITS and CA in a series of COVID-19 deaths and (2) evaluate the safety of the procedure.
methodsFrom October 2020 to February 2021, MITS was conducted in 12 adults who tested positive before death for COVID-19, in a standard, well-ventilated autopsy room, where personnel used reinforced personal protective equipment. In 9 cases, a CA was performed after MITS. A thorough histological evaluation was conducted, and the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was evaluated by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and immunohistochemistry.
resultsThe diagnoses provided by MITS and CA matched almost perfectly. In 9 patients, COVID-19 was in the chain of events leading to death, being responsible for diffuse alveolar damage and mononuclear T-cell inflammatory response in the lungs. No specific COVID-19 features were identified. Three deaths were not related to COVID-19. All personnel involved in MITS repeatedly tested negative for COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was identified by RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry in the MITS samples, particularly in the lungs.
conclusionsMITS is useful for evaluating COVID-19-related deaths in settings where a CA is not feasible. The results of this simplified and safer technique are comparable to those of CA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.