Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626585›Full record

ArticleAcademic pathology

Free for all: Exploring next of kin consent for autopsy.

Meagan Chambers, Shera Wanner, Charlie M Sawyer, Nicole R Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic pathology. 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

4 authors.

Meagan ChambersDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Shera WannerUniversity of Washington Medical School, Seattle, WA, USA.
Charlie M SawyerUniversity of Washington Medical School, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nicole R JacksonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autopsy provides critical benefits for patients, families, healthcare systems, and communities by confirming diagnoses, identifying unexpected findings, and improving medical knowledge. Less is known, however, about how autopsy consent is distributed across demographic groups when access barriers are minimized. This study evaluates the socioeconomic trends of autopsy utilization among various race, sex, income, and primary language groups at a large academic institution. A retrospective review of all in-hospital deaths and autopsies was completed for cases from 2018 to 2022. Frequencies of autopsies for race, economic status, sex, and English as a first language were compared to frequencies of in-hospital deaths for these same variables. Of 4626 deaths, 821 autopsies were performed that met the inclusion criteria (a 17.7% autopsy consent rate). Most autopsies were performed on men (n = 489, 59.6%), White (n = 568, 69.2%), non-Hispanic patients (n = 644, 78.4%), and living in-state residents (n = 703, 85.6%). Women, Asians, and nonnative English speakers were less likely to be autopsied; only 5% of autopsies were done for decedents with English as a second language (

Indexed as

Academic medicineAnatomic pathologyAutopsyAutopsy consentHealth equityHospital autopsy

Identifiers

PMID41626585
PMCPMC12859773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.