ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
New Insights on Molecular Autopsy in Sudden Death: A Systematic Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary and Personalized Molecular Diagnosis to Solving Sudden Death During Sport.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Molecular autopsy in unexplained sudden death: a systematic review and meta-analysis of ACMG-corrected diagnostic yield, genomic architecture, and family translation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Cardiovascular Diseases in Public Health: Chromosomal Abnormalities in Congenital Heart Disease Causing Sudden Cardiac Death in Children.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Fentanyl and Sudden Death-A Postmortem Perspective for Diagnosing and Predicting Risk.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Sudden cardiac death and the role of postmortem genetic testing in unexplained cases.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalReview
- Risk of sudden cardiac death due to inorganic pyrophosphate A2 deficiency in a Pakistani infant: Diagnostic and management challenges in low-resource settings.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sudden unexpected deaths often remain unresolved despite forensic examination, posing challenges for pathologists. Molecular autopsy, through genetic testing, can reveal hidden causes undetectable by standard methods. This review assesses the role of molecular autopsy in clarifying SUD cases, examining its methodology, utility, and effectiveness in autopsy practice. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024499832). Searches on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified English studies (2018-2023) on molecular autopsy in sudden death cases. Data from selected studies were recorded and filtered based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Descriptive statistics analyzed the study scope, tissue usage, publication countries, and journals. A total of 1759 publications from the past 5 years were found, with 30 duplicates excluded. After detailed consideration, 1645 publications were also excluded, leaving 84 full-text articles for selection. Out of these, 37 full-text articles were chosen for analysis. Different study types were analyzed. Mutations were identified in 17 studies, totaling 47 mutations. Molecular investigations are essential when standard exams fall short in determining sudden death causes. Expertise in molecular biology is crucial due to diverse genetic conditions. Discrepancies in post-mortem protocols affect the validity of results, making standardization necessary. Multidisciplinary approaches and the analysis of different tissue types are vital.
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.