Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38008919›Full record

ArticleBalkan medical journal2024

Analysis of Forensic Death Statistics From 2013 to 2022 and Autopsy Practices in Türkiye

Cemil Çelik, Uğur Ata, Naile Esra Saka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Balkan medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Cemil ÇelikForensic Medicine, Council of Forensic Medicine, Kahramanmaraş, TürkiyeORCID 0000-0002-8103-459X
Uğur AtaForensic Medicine, Council of Forensic Medicine, Kahramanmaraş, TürkiyeORCID 0000-0002-8400-293X
Naile Esra SakaForensic Medicine, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ, TürkiyeORCID 0000-0001-5415-9074

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Autopsy rates are significantly lower that what they should be worldwide. Additionally, autopsy practices vary between countries. Aims: To examine the autopsy rates, the distribution and temporal changes of forensic autopsy cases, so as to identify the areas in the death investigation system that require improvement in Türkiye. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: “Forensic Death Examination Statistics” of the Council of Forensic Medicine (CFM) and “Death Statistics” of the Turkish Statistical Institute were compared and analyzed for the years 2013-2022 in Türkiye. Results: The number of forensic death cases sent to the CFM has increased over time. For all causes of deaths, the autopsy rate is approximately 3.6-4.8%. The cause-specific mortality rates for deaths due to sharp instrument trauma, blunt trauma, occupational accident, undetermined, and poisoning have increased over the years. “The percentage of “undetermined” deaths, which are important to demonstrate negative autopsies, was 14.2% in 2021. Conclusion: Although the autopsy rates have slightly increased in a volatile trend over time in Türkiye, they are still not at the desired level. Thus, it is essential to further raise awareness among all professionals involved in death investigations about the importance of autopsies.

Indexed as

Forensic MedicineAutopsyCause of DeathCross-Sectional StudiesHumansTurkey

Identifiers

PMID38008919
PMCPMC10767775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.