ReviewInsights into imaging2024
How to report perinatal and paediatric postmortem CT.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 10 years of paediatric and perinatal postmortem imaging: where are we now?Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Standardised structured fetal and neonatal postmortem magnetic resonance imaging reporting: recommendations from the European Society of Paediatric Radiology Postmortem Task Force.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Implementation of pediatric and fetal postmortem imaging into clinical practice: a multi-society statement from the ESPR, SPR, SLARP, AOSPR, WFPI, and IAFR.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postmortem CT (PMCT) has become increasingly accepted alongside skeletal surveys as a critical part of investigation in childhood deaths, either as part of a suite of non-invasive investigations through parental choice, or comprehensive evaluation in a forensic setting. Whilst CT image acquisition and protocols have been published and are relatively standardised, CT imaging reporting remains highly variable, largely dependent upon reporter experience and expertise. The main "risk" in PMCT is the over-interpretation of normal physiological changes on imaging as pathological, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis of the disease. In this article, we present a pragmatic standardised reporting framework, developed over a decade of PMCT reporting in children in our institution, with examples of positive and negative findings, so that it may aid in the interpretation of PMCT images with those less experienced in paediatric findings and postmortem imaging. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Standardised reporting using a common framework with a sound understanding of normal postmortem changes that occur in children are crucial in avoiding common reporting errors at postmortem CT. KEY POINTS: Familiarity with postmortem imaging is required for useful image reporting, and reporting standards vary. Understanding normal postmortem change from significant abnormalities requires training and experience. Following a template may remind reporters what to include and help improve performance.
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.