ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026
Assessing the effectiveness of embalming in cadavers with COVID-19 after full autopsy and minimally invasive autopsy.
Article 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Embalming (EM) reduces residual SARS-CoV-2 in tissues, but its effectiveness on the external body surfaces of corpses infected with coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) remains unclear. We therefore examined the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the pharynx, anus, and on external body surfaces following EM in nine COVID-19-infected corpses, including four full autopsy cases and five minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) cases. Antigen testing and viral quantification using real-time PCR were performed. Nasopharyngeal antigen tests were positive prior to EM and negative thereafter in all nine cases. Among the four autopsy cases, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in all nasopharyngeal samples (100%), in two oropharyngeal samples (50%), and at seven sites (41%) across 17 external body surfaces, three or more days after EM. No viral RNA was detected in anal samples. Among the five MIA cases, viral RNA was detected in two nasopharyngeal samples (40%), one oropharyngeal sample (20%), and at four sites (44%) across nine external body surfaces, three or more days after EM. The reduction in viral load before and after EM exceeded 99%in nasopharynx and oropharyngeal samples in both autopsy and MIA cases, and exceeded 94% on external body surfaces in MIA cases. Moreover, viral reduction was greater several days after EM than immediately following the procedure. These findings suggest that the combination of MIA and EM effectively reduces the detectableSARS-CoV-2 RNA in COVID-19-infected corpses. Additionally, maintaining the body for several days after EM appears to reduce the viral levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41961192What 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.