Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39804481›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2025

First year of in-house forensic neuropathology consultations in Helsinki, Finland.

Petteri Oura, Hilla Mäkinen, Roosa Ruotsalainen, Miko Ruokomäki, Antti Virtanen, Antti J Hakkarainen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Petteri OuraForensic Medicine Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, FIN-00271, Finland. petteri.oura@helsinki.fi.
Hilla MäkinenForensic Medicine Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, FIN-00271, Finland.
Roosa RuotsalainenForensic Medicine Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, FIN-00271, Finland.
Miko RuokomäkiForensic Medicine Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, FIN-00271, Finland.
Antti VirtanenForensic Medicine Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, FIN-00271, Finland.
Antti J HakkarainenForensic Medicine Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, P.O. Box 30, Helsinki, FIN-00271, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In July 2023, an in-house forensic neuropathology consultation pilot was established at the Helsinki office of the Forensic Medicine Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. This offered an alternative to the previous practice of full outsourcing to a hospital neuropathology department. This paper aims to introduce the first year experiences of the pilot. The in-house consultant team comprised two forensic pathologists with special training in neuropathology. In-house consultations were offered for medico-legal autopsy cases with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. The in-house histology laboratory participated in the pilot, implementing beta-amyloid precursor protein (β-APP) stain at the end of the pilot year. An electronic database was also developed for data collection and reporting. The characteristics, costs, and duration of the first 25 consultation cases were reviewed. The cases involved mostly male decedents (84.0%) with TBI (84.0%). The median total cost of a pilot case was €624, which was substantially lower compared to the previous outsourced practice (€1013 per case + €38/84 for each microscope slide with special/immunohistochemical stain, respectively). After the implementation of β-APP stain into the in-house laboratory service, the median total cost of a pilot case was reduced further to €94. The median duration of an in-house consultation was 2.3 months. Thanks to a favourable in-house atmosphere, the first year experiences are encouraging. While the costs of the in-house consultation practice appear to be markedly lower than those of an external provider, both alternatives should be available for cases where sufficient expertise cannot be found in-house.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticForensic PathologyHypoxia-Ischemia, BrainNeuropathologyReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAutopsyFemaleFinlandHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsCentral nervous systemCostLegal medicineMedico-legal autopsyOutsourcingPilot

Identifiers

PMID39804481
PMCPMC11850508

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.