The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Clinical, educational, and epidemiological value of autopsy
Abstract
The autopsy is now often regarded as of marginal use in modern clinical practice. In this Review we contend that the autopsy remains an important procedure with substantial, if largely underused, potential to advance medical knowledge and improve clinical practice. Many doctors lack familiarity with autopsy practices, and are insufficiently aware of the benefits for not only bereaved families but also present and future patients. In this Review, which has an international perspective, we consider the ascent and decline of the autopsy, the legal frameworks that govern its use, the value and potential pitfalls of alternatives to the conventional method, and the autopsy's role in undergraduate medical education. We also draw attention to the continuing ability of autopsies to improve the completeness and reliability of death certification, which is important for public-health strategies and for some bereaved families.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Universally low autopsy rates preclude post-mortem diagnosis of AMI in most missed cases.
“Universally low autopsy rates [14, 15] preclude post-mortem diagnosis of AMI in most missed cases.”
From Incidence, diagnosis, management and outcome of acute mesenteric ischaemia: a prospective, multicentre observational study (AMESI Study) (2024) · cites this paper as [15]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 107 · Cited by 440
Metadata
- Authors
- Burton, J. L., & Underwood, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- ORCID
- Underwood, James
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 369
- Issue
- 9571
- Pages
- 1471-1480
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2116673403
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 107
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 2.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
- Keywords
- autopsy, death certification, undergraduate medical education, clinical practice, bereaved families, history of autopsy
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Autopsy, Biopsy, Needle, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Informed Consent, Public Opinion, Religion and Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
