ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026
Post-mortem ultrasound for detecting major fluid collections: a systematic review.
Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional autopsy is an essential tool for post-mortem diagnosis, but recently acceptance has declined, leading to increased interest in minimally invasive alternatives such as post-mortem ultrasonography (PMUS). The diagnostic test accuracy of PMUS in forensic and perinatal contexts has not been systematically evaluated. Our systematic review aimed to evaluate the accuracy of diagnosis by using PMUS for detection of pericardial tamponade, hemoperitoneum, and hemothorax, using either full autopsy or minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) as a reference standard. Using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, we conducted a comprehensive literature review on studies evaluating PMUS for detection of post-mortem fluid accumulations, with reference confirmations. Regarding data extraction and quality assessment, we implemented and followed PRISMA-DTA and QUADAS-2 standards. The results were synthesized given the data limitations. Out of four studies, comprising a total of 814 post-mortem examinations (629 adults and 185 perinatal cases), sensitivity of PMUS for pericardial tamponade ranged from 0 to 85%, for free abdominal fluid from 60 to 100%, and for pleural effusion/hemothorax from 0 to 50%. Factors that influenced the results of PMUS were probe selection, operator experience, post-mortem interval, and the individual characteristics of each case. Because of incomplete reporting of denominators and 2 × 2 data, true diagnostic accuracy could not be definitively established or pooled.Generally, PMUS was feasible and rapid, but data were limited by incomplete specificity reporting and methodological variation. PMUS is a promising adjunct tool for identifying major post-mortem fluid accumulations, especially in situations where full autopsy is not feasible. Yet, diagnostic certainty and accuracy are limited by sensitivity variability and data limitations. We recommend that future research focus on uniformity and standardization of imaging protocols, operator training, and validation in larger prospective cohorts to better define the role and applicability of PMUS in forensic and perinatal settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41801536What 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.