ReviewBJR open2026
Medico-legal considerations in post-mortem imaging data: governance, ethics, and evidential use.
Review in BJR open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-mortem imaging, in particular CT (PMCT), is increasingly used for death investigation in England and Wales, yet unlike "live" clinical imaging, this data falls outside traditional health-record legislation, creating uncertainty around data ownership, access rights, and disclosure obligations. This review examines the current data governance landscape surrounding post-mortem imaging data, identifying critical gaps requiring national guidance. We explore fundamental questions of data control between coroners and commercial service providers, noting how the absence of standardized frameworks has resulted in substantial regional variation in practice. Key challenges include inconsistent approaches to data storage, whether on clinical or dedicated PACS systems, varying data-retention periods, and disparate policies for third-party access by researchers, legal teams, and bereaved families. The evolving role of radiologists as expert witnesses in coronial and criminal proceedings presents additional complexities, particularly regarding who is best placed to explain imaging findings in court. We propose recommendations including national standards for data governance, standardized contractual frameworks clarifying data-controller relationships, protocols for secure storage and access controls, and defined competencies for radiologists presenting evidence in legal settings. Establishing robust governance foundations for post-mortem imaging data is essential to ensure this technology serves the public interest effectively, while maintaining legal defensibility and ethical integrity.
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.