↓ Skip to main content

Non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy compared to conventional autopsy of suspected natural deaths in adults: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy compared to conventional autopsy of suspected natural deaths in adults: a systematic review
Published in
European Radiology, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00330-015-3908-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Britt M. Blokker, Ivo M. Wagensveld, Annick C. Weustink, J. Wolter Oosterhuis, M. G. Myriam Hunink

Abstract

Autopsies are used for healthcare quality control and improving medical knowledge. Because autopsy rates are declining worldwide, various non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy methods are now being developed. To investigate whether these might replace the invasive autopsies conventionally performed in naturally deceased adults, we systematically reviewed original prospective validation studies. We searched six databases. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Methods and patient groups were too heterogeneous for meaningful meta-analysis of outcomes. Sixteen of 1538 articles met our inclusion criteria. Eight studies used a blinded comparison; ten included less than 30 appropriate cases. Thirteen studies used radiological imaging (seven dealt solely with non-invasive procedures), two thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, and one sampling without imaging. Combining CT and MR was the best non-invasive method (agreement for cause of death: 70 %, 95%CI: 62.6; 76.4), but minimally invasive methods surpassed non-invasive methods. The highest sensitivity for cause of death (90.9 %, 95%CI: 74.5; 97.6, suspected duplicates excluded) was achieved in recent studies combining CT, CT-angiography and biopsies. Minimally invasive autopsies including biopsies performed best. To establish a feasible alternative to conventional autopsy and to increase consent to post-mortem investigations, further research in larger study groups is needed. • Health care quality control benefits from clinical feedback provided by (alternative) autopsies. • So far, sixteen studies investigated alternative autopsy methods for naturally deceased adults. • Thirteen studies used radiological imaging modalities, eight tissue biopsies, and three CT-angiography. • Combined CT, CT-angiography and biopsies were most sensitive diagnosing cause of death.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 164 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Master 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 39 23%
Unknown 42 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 49 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 07 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,363,730
of 23,989,432 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#492
of 4,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,459
of 266,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#5
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,989,432 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,443 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 266,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.