ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2025
Post-Mortem Community Surveillance of COVID-19: Implementation and Evaluation of a Pilot System in the Funeral Sector in England, UK, January 2021 to February 2022.
Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, due to limited testing, a potential gap in capturing SARS-CoV-2-positive community deaths was identified. Post-mortem testing for respiratory viruses had never been implemented in the United Kingdom.
aimThrough implementing and evaluating a pilot, we aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of post-mortem SARS-CoV-2 surveillance using funeral directors (FDs) to capture 'missed' COVID-19 community deaths.
methodsBetween January 2021 and February 2022, four FDs took upper respiratory tract samples from eligible people who died outside hospital. We tested for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and matched results to the national COVID-19 mortality dataset. We evaluated the pilot for acceptability, data completeness and timeliness, and simplicity, using semi-structured interviews, a questionnaire, and data audit.
resultsTwo thousand eight hundred sixty-five deaths were handled by FDs: 998 were assessed for eligibility, 342 were eligible 81 were tested. Eight were SARS-CoV-2-positive, of which three were not identified by ante-mortem clinical testing. The programme was acceptable in principle to FDs and families, but FDs' participation was limited by the burden of legal requirements and existing workloads. Families' willingness to consent fluctuated (monthly consent rate 4-83%, overall 30%); fewer consented when overall cases were low. Completeness and timeliness of data was good. FDs judged the programme simple.
conclusionThe pilot established feasibility and demonstrated, even with small numbers, the ability to detect 'missed' deaths. There were significant obstacles to implementation. Alternative settings for taking specimens are being explored instead to address this gap in national surveillance.
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.