Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38816589›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2024

How to report perinatal and paediatric postmortem CT.

Susan C Shelmerdine, Owen J Arthurs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Susan C ShelmerdineGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, WC1N 3JH, UK. susan.shelmerdine@gosh.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6642-9967
Owen J ArthursGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, WC1N 3JH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AutopsyCTPaediatricPostmortemRadiology

Identifiers

PMID38816589
PMCPMC11139809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.