↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic accuracy of postmortem imaging vs autopsy—A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Radiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of postmortem imaging vs autopsy—A systematic review
Published in
European Journal of Radiology, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.08.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders Eriksson, Torfinn Gustafsson, Malin Höistad, Monica Hultcrantz, Stella Jacobson, Ingegerd Mejare, Anders Persson

Abstract

Background Postmortem imaging has been used for more than a century as a complement to medico-legal autopsies. The technique has also emerged as a possible alternative to compensate for the continuous decline in the number of clinical autopsies. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of postmortem imaging for various types of findings, we performed this systematic literature review. Data sources The literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library through January 7, 2015. Relevant publications were assessed for risk of bias using the QUADAS tool and were classified as low, moderate or high risk of bias according to pre-defined criteria. Autopsy and/or histopathology were used as reference standard. Findings The search generated 2600 abstracts, of which 340 were assessed as possibly relevant and read in full-text. After further evaluation 71 studies were finally included, of which 49 were assessed as having high risk of bias and 22 as moderate risk of bias. Due to considerable heterogeneity - in populations, techniques, analyses and reporting - of included studies it was impossible to combine data to get a summary estimate of the diagnostic accuracy of the various findings. Individual studies indicate, however, that imaging techniques might be useful for determining organ weights, and that the techniques seem superior to autopsy for detecting gas Conclusions and Implications In general, based on the current scientific literature, it was not possible to determine the diagnostic accuracy of postmortem imaging and its usefulness in conjunction with, or as an alternative to autopsy. To correctly determine the usefulness of postmortem imaging, future studies need improved planning, improved methodological quality and larger materials, preferentially obtained from multi-center studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 27 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 30 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2019.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Radiology
#1,497
of 3,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,133
of 420,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Radiology
#20
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,036 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.