ArticlePathologica2021
Survey on postmortem screening and management of COVID-19 related deaths.
Article in Pathologica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a high case fatality rate in some countries even thought the majority of cases are asymptomatic. Scientific studies on this novel virus is limited and there is uncertainty regarding the best practices for death investigations both in terms of detection of the disease as well as autopsy safety. An online survey was conducted to identify how different institutions responded to the screening and management of dead bodies during the early phase of the pandemic from January to May. A questionnaire was developed using Google Forms and data was collected from 14 different forensic and pathological institutions in 9 countries. None of the institutions had performed any screening prior to March. Four institutions stated that screening was done routinely. In total, 322 cases had been screened using RT-PCR, out of which 40 positive cases were detected among four institutions. The commonest types of samples obtained were nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs which also had the highest rates of positivity followed by tracheal swab. Blood, swabs from cut surfaces of lung and lung tissue also gave positive results in some cases. Majority of the positive cases were > 65 years with a history suggestive of respiratory infection and were clinically suspected to have COVID-19 before death. Except for one institution which performed limited dissections, standard autopsies were conducted on all positive cases. Disposal of bodies involved the use of sealed body bags and labelling as COVID positive. Funeral rites were restricted and none of the institutions advocated cremation. There were no reports of disease transmission to those who handled COVID positive bodies.
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.