Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40164873›Full record

ReviewPediatric research2025

Advancing neonatal autopsy by strengthening physician belief and fostering effective family communication.

Panagiotis Kratimenos, Gabriele Simonti, Hannah C Kinney

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Panagiotis KratimenosChildren's National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA. panagiotis.kratimenos@childrensnational.org.
Gabriele SimontiChildren's National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Hannah C KinneyDepartment of Pathology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. hannah.kinney@childrens.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With decreasing rates of neonatal autopsies, it is crucial to raise awareness among medical professionals about the fundamental information obtained from this procedure. Despite new medical advancements, an autopsy is still one of the most reliable methods to determine cause of death. Yet physicians and medical students receive limited exposure and training regarding the value of neonatal autopsies, which likely is contributing to the declining number of autopsies in the United States. Additionally, the emotional state of parents around the death of their infant can increase the discomfort healthcare professionals feel about broaching autopsy conversations with the family. Thus, it is pivotal for physicians and other clinicians to be aware of the benefits of neonatal autopsies and become comfortable communicating this information to families in a timely and appropriate manner. In this article, we provide recommendations to fill these knowledge and communication gaps by presenting common concerns and considerations surrounding autopsy discussion and how to address them. Included are example scripts for conversations that model requesting consent for autopsy at a painful time. This article is intended for neonatologists and pediatricians, as well as other healthcare professionals and trainees. IMPACT: Neonatal autopsies are vital yet often overlooked. This article presents challenges that physicians face in discussing the autopsy process with grieving families and offers practical insights into these complex conversations.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAutopsyCommunicationPhysiciansProfessional-Family RelationsHumansInfant, NewbornParentsUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.