ReviewCureus2022
A Comprehensive Review of Pathological Examination in Forensic Medicine: Past, Present, and Future.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review on the use of C-reactive protein in autopsy practice.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Pooled it
- A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy of CD117 and Special Stains as Indicators of Mechanical Asphyxial Deaths.Annals of African medicine · 2026Article
- Cancer-related deaths among cases referred for forensic evaluation in Türkiye: a 5-year retrospective analysis.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Late mandibular fracture after third molar extraction: a malpractice case or not?The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2025Article
- Virtual histological staining of unlabeled autopsy tissue.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pathological examination (PE) encompasses a gross or macroscopy and histopathological or microscopic examination. It is prudent in finding the cause of death (COD) in clinical and medicolegal autopsies. There are various auxiliary techniques in the form of clinical history, communication, specialized training, and protocols for consolidation of the PE results. After a thorough search of the literature in PubMed with relevant keywords along with further analysis of the results, it emerged that even with the modernization of forensic medicine, a PE is unbeatable in detecting the COD. It has various useful aspects, apart from regular finding the COD, such as in student teaching, epidemiology of disease, audit tool, and quality assurance. There are also limitations of PE, which should be dealt with great caution. Hence, limitations must be understood by a forensic expert as well as a pathologist. In this review, all factors that are related to PE in any manner are discussed in detail, and the scope for improving the quality of PE to be relevant in the present scenario is reviewed. It is a comprehensive reassessment of the literature review that also casts light on the future along with a critical analysis of the facts that deal with PE.
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.