Are non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy techniques for detecting cause of death in prenates, neonates and infants accurate? A systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy

Author:

O'Keefe HannahORCID,Shenfine Rebekka,Brown Melissa,Beyer Fiona,Rankin Judith

Abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy techniques in deaths under 1 year of age.DesignThis is a systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO.ParticipantsDeaths from conception to one adjusted year of age.Search methodsMEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), the Cochrane Library, Scopus and grey literature sources were searched from inception to November 2021.Diagnostic testsNon-invasive or minimally invasive diagnostic tests as an alternative to traditional autopsy.Data collection and analysisStudies were included if participants were under one adjusted year of age, with index tests conducted prior to the reference standard.Data were extracted from eligible studies using piloted forms. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. A narrative synthesis was conducted following the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis guidelines. Vote counting was used to assess the direction of effect.Main outcome measuresDirection of effect was expressed as percentage of patients per study.FindingsWe included 54 direct evidence studies (68 articles/trials), encompassing 3268 cases and eight index tests. The direction of effect was positive for postmortem ultrasound and antenatal echography, although with varying levels of success. Conversely, the direction of effect was against virtual autopsy. For the remaining tests, the direction of effect was inconclusive.A further 134 indirect evidence studies (135 articles/trials) were included, encompassing 6242 perinatal cases. The addition of these results had minimal impact on the direct findings yet did reveal other techniques, which may be favourable alternatives to autopsy.Seven trial registrations were included but yielded no results.ConclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to make firm conclusions about the generalised use of non-invasive or minimally invasive autopsy techniques in relation to all perinatal population groups.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021223254.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference257 articles.

1. Tommy’s . Pregnancy loss statistics, 2021. Available: https://www.tommys.org/baby-loss-support/pregnancy-loss-statistics

2. Availability of less invasive prenatal, perinatal and paediatric autopsy will improve uptake rates: a mixed-methods study with bereaved parents;Lewis;BJOG,2019

3. NHS . Perinatal pathology, 2013. Available: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/e12-perinatal-path.pdf

4. Perinatal and infant autopsy

5. Ten years of neonatal autopsies in tertiary referral centre: retrospective study

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3