Garyfalia Ampanozi1, Delaja Halbheer2, Lars C Ebert2, Michael J Thali2, Ulrike Held3,4. 1. Forensic Medicine and Imaging, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland. garyfalia.ampanozi@irm.uzh.ch. 2. Forensic Medicine and Imaging, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Horten Centre, University of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, Department of Biostatistics, University of Zurich, Hirschengraben 84, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of postmortem computed tomography (PMCT), postmortem magnetic resonance imaging (PMMR) and PMCT angiography (PMCTA) compared with autopsy in cases of adult death investigations. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Medline were searched for eligible studies in October 2016; a follow-up literature search was conducted in March 2018. Studies referring to PMCT, PMCTA and/or PMMR of more than 3 cases with subsequent autopsy were included. Data were extracted from published texts in duplicate. The extracted outcomes were categorized as follows: soft tissue and organ findings, skeletal injuries, haemorrhages, abnormal gas accumulations and causes of death. The summary measure was sensitivity, if 3 or more studies were available. To combine studies, a random effects model was used. Variability and heterogeneity within the meta-analysis was assessed. RESULTS: Of 1053 studies, 66 were eligible, encompassing a total of 4213 individuals. For soft tissue and organ findings, there was a high pooled sensitivity with PMCTA (0.91, 95% CI 0.81-0.96), without evidence for between-study variability (Cochrane's Q test p = 0.331, I2 = 24.5%). The pooled sensitivity of PMCT+PMMR was very high in skeletal injuries (0.97, CI 0.87-0.99), without evidence for variability (p = 0.857, I2 = 0.0%). In detecting haemorrhages, the pooled sensitivity for PMCT+PMMR was the highest (0.88, 95% CI 0.35-0.99), with strong evidence of heterogeneity (p < 0.05, I2 > 50%). Pooled sensitivity for the correct cause of death was the highest for PMCTA with 0.79 (95% CI 0.52-0.93), again with evidence of heterogeneity (p = 0.062, I2 > 50%). CONCLUSION: Distinct postmortem imaging modalities can achieve high sensitivities for detecting various findings and causes of death. This knowledge should lead to a reasoned use of each modality. Both forensic evidence and in-hospital medical quality would be enhanced.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of postmortem computed tomography (PMCT), postmortem magnetic resonance imaging (PMMR) and PMCT angiography (PMCTA) compared with autopsy in cases of adult death investigations. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Medline were searched for eligible studies in October 2016; a follow-up literature search was conducted in March 2018. Studies referring to PMCT, PMCTA and/or PMMR of more than 3 cases with subsequent autopsy were included. Data were extracted from published texts in duplicate. The extracted outcomes were categorized as follows: soft tissue and organ findings, skeletal injuries, haemorrhages, abnormal gas accumulations and causes of death. The summary measure was sensitivity, if 3 or more studies were available. To combine studies, a random effects model was used. Variability and heterogeneity within the meta-analysis was assessed. RESULTS: Of 1053 studies, 66 were eligible, encompassing a total of 4213 individuals. For soft tissue and organ findings, there was a high pooled sensitivity with PMCTA (0.91, 95% CI 0.81-0.96), without evidence for between-study variability (Cochrane's Q test p = 0.331, I2 = 24.5%). The pooled sensitivity of PMCT+PMMR was very high in skeletal injuries (0.97, CI 0.87-0.99), without evidence for variability (p = 0.857, I2 = 0.0%). In detecting haemorrhages, the pooled sensitivity for PMCT+PMMR was the highest (0.88, 95% CI 0.35-0.99), with strong evidence of heterogeneity (p < 0.05, I2 > 50%). Pooled sensitivity for the correct cause of death was the highest for PMCTA with 0.79 (95% CI 0.52-0.93), again with evidence of heterogeneity (p = 0.062, I2 > 50%). CONCLUSION: Distinct postmortem imaging modalities can achieve high sensitivities for detecting various findings and causes of death. This knowledge should lead to a reasoned use of each modality. Both forensic evidence and in-hospital medical quality would be enhanced.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic test accuracy; Meta-analysis; Postmortem computed tomography; Postmortem computed tomography angiography; Postmortem cross-sectional imaging; Postmortem magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Francesca Romana Pluchinotta; Prashob Porayette; Abbas Haider Zaidi; John Baci; Lisa Teot; Stephen P Sanders; Sanjay P Prabhu Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Jang Gyu Cha; Dong Hun Kim; Dae Ho Kim; Sang Hyun Paik; Jai Soung Park; Seong Jin Park; Hae Kyung Lee; Hyun Sook Hong; Duek Lin Choi; Kyung Moo Yang; Nak Eun Chung; Bong Woo Lee; Joong Seok Seo Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2010-06-21 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Saskia E Westphal; Jonas C Apitzsch; Tobias Penzkofer; Christiane K Kuhl; Andreas H Mahnken; Ruth Knüchel Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Nicole Berger; Garyfalia Ampanozi; Wolf Schweitzer; Steffen G Ross; Dominic Gascho; Thomas D Ruder; Michael J Thali; Patricia M Flach Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: Hamid Jalalzadeh; Georgios F Giannakopoulos; Ferco H Berger; Judith Fronczek; Frank R W van de Goot; Udo J Reijnders; Wietse P Zuidema Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: Dominic L C Guebelin; Akos Dobay; Lars Ebert; Eva Betschart; Michael J Thali; Sabine Franckenberg Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Marloes E M Vester; Kurt B Nolte; Gary M Hatch; Chandra Y Gerrard; Reinoud D Stoel; Rick R van Rijn Journal: J Forensic Sci Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 1.832
Authors: Lars Christian Ebert; Sabine Franckenberg; Till Sieberth; Wolf Schweitzer; Michael Thali; Jonathan Ford; Summer Decker Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 2.686