ReviewCureus2025
Post-surgical Autopsy Findings: Insights Into Forensic Evaluation and Surgical Complications.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Forensic Approach to Perioperative Deaths After Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- New perspectives from evidence to action - patient-centered evidence transformation in evidence-based nursing: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review examined the role of autopsy in identifying fatal surgical complications and diagnostic discrepancies across diverse contexts over the past decade. A structured search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and reference lists identified 252 records, from which 11 studies were included after rigorous screening. The evidence base encompassed retrospective cohorts, single-case reports, experimental animal studies, and archaeological analyses, reflecting heterogeneous designs, populations, and surgical contexts. Major discrepancies between clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings were observed in up to 47% of cases, most frequently involving hemorrhage, sepsis, pulmonary embolism, and anastomotic leaks. While autopsy consistently clarified causes of death and provided critical insights for patient safety and medicolegal accountability, the overall certainty of evidence was moderate to low due to study heterogeneity, publication bias, and variable reporting quality. These findings underscore the persistent gap between perioperative expectations and actual outcomes and highlight the irreplaceable role of autopsy in quality improvement, risk reduction, and forensic practice. The next step in research should focus on standardized guidelines, strong multicentric partnerships, and follow-ups to more effectively incorporate autopsy data on surgical safety planning and training. The synthesis proves that autopsy is a valuable, underused instrument of enhancing care, transparency, and evidence-based practice in contemporary healthcare systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.