ArticleCureus2025
Analysis of Autopsy Justifications by Medical Boards in Relation to the Manner and Cause of Death.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Occupational mortality in older workers: A forensic autopsy-based evaluation.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Autopsy findings of inferior vena cava filter perforation: a forensic analysis of retroperitoneal hemorrhage and medical liability.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Epidemiological Characteristics of Custodial Deaths: An Autopsy Study at a Tertiary Care Institute in Rishikesh.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Autopsies serve a crucial role in elucidating ambiguous deaths, thereby providing legal clarity, wherein autopsy surgeons fulfill an indispensable function in ascertaining the manner of death, classified as natural, accidental, homicidal, suicidal, or indeterminate. Medical Board autopsies, which involve a collaborative multidisciplinary approach, yield a superior standard of medico-legal examination and are esteemed by judicial authorities. However, the extensive time and resources necessitated by these autopsies limit their application to atypical cases. There exists a salient requirement to rigorously assess the rationale behind Medical Board autopsies concerning the associated manner and causation of death. Methodology An observational analysis of a retrospective nature was performed at the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India, assessing autopsy documentation between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2020. A comprehensive review of 262 Medical Board autopsies was performed through consecutive sampling, evaluating post-mortem reports, police/magistrates' inquests, histopathological findings, biological samples, and toxicological analyses, among other relevant documents. Results Out of the 262 cases examined, 67.9% (178) of Medical Board autopsies were necessitated by custodial deaths, while 12.6% (33) arose from law enforcement exigencies. Natural causes led to 59.9% (157) of deaths, with unnatural causes contributing to 40.1% (105) of deaths. In categorizing unnatural deaths, it was noted that homicides were 49.5% (52), accidents represented 21.9% (23), suicides constituted 17.2% (18), and suspected medical negligence accounted for 7.6% (eight). Conclusion The outcomes underscore the necessity for transparent, standardized protocols governing the allocation of Medical Board autopsies, ensuring their deployment in circumstances demanding impartial, high-quality medico-legal evaluation, particularly in custodial deaths, allegations of malpractice, and cases anticipated to engage judicial scrutiny. Policymakers ought to emphasize resource distribution, establish objective criteria for Medical Board engagement, and formulate protocols to enhance both the efficacy and integrity of medico-legal investigations.
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.