ArticleBMJ open2025
Experts' attitudes towards 'targeted autopsies' using qualitative interviews in a medical network in Germany.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe behaviour of tumour metastases and the different responses to therapies are still not fully understood. The project 'targeted autopsies' of the Universities of Regensburg and Erlangen aimed to further uncover the metastatic behaviour of malignant tumours by scientifically processing different tumour samples. To initiate such a programme, the concerns of all possible stakeholders must be analysed so that the programme can be set up accordingly and the highest possible level of approval can be achieved.
designThis study investigated the basic attitude toward a targeted autopsy programme for patients with tumours and possible criteria for such a programme using qualitative interviews. Focus group discussions were held to explore the opinions and views regarding ethical aspects of various professional groups (experts) involved in this project. An interview guideline was prepared beforehand by the supervising project group. Semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed through qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.
settingUniversity of Regensburg, Germany and cooperating medical partners.
resultsAltogether, 15 experts were interviewed. The experts described the project as interesting and feasible. They assumed a sufficient participation rate in this autopsy programme from the population; however, they recommend giving importance to providing sufficient and professional education to all persons involved. Preserving the dignity of the donor and providing appropriate care for relatives is of great importance. Good organisation is considered imperative for the success of the project.
conclusionGenerally, experts favour the implementation of a targeted autopsy programme. However, some hurdles must be overcome. Challenges similar to those in general or rapid autopsy and organ donation programmes exist, such as donor recruitment, staffing shortages and financial constraints. People involved must be well informed before the project.
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.