Shojania Kaveh G, Burton Elizabeth C, McDonald Kathryn M, Goldman Lee
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
JAMA. 2003 Jun 4;289(21):2849-56. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.21.2849.
Substantial discrepanies exist between clinical diagnoses and findings at autopsy. Autopsy may be used as a tool for quality management to analyze diagnostic discrepanies.
To determine the rate at which autopsies detect important, clinically missed diagnoses, and the extent to which this rate has changed over time.
A systematic literature search for English-language articles available on MEDLINE from 1966 to April 2002, using the search terms autopsy, postmortem changes, post-mortem, postmortem, necropsy, and posthumous, identified 45 studies reporting 53 distinct autopsy series meeting prospectively defined criteria. Reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies, and the final bibliography was distributed to experts in the field to identify missing or unpublished studies.
Included studies reported clinically missed diagnoses involving a primary cause of death (major errors), with the most serious being those likely to have affected patient outcome (class I errors).
Logistic regression was performed using data from 53 distinct autopsy series over a 40-year period and adjusting for the effects of changes in autopsy rates, country, case mix (general autopsies; adult medical; adult intensive care; adult or pediatric surgery; general pediatrics or pediatric inpatients; neonatal or pediatric intensive care; and other autopsy), and important methodological features of the primary studies.
Of 53 autopsy series identified, 42 reported major errors and 37 reported class I errors. Twenty-six autopsy series reported both major and class I error rates. The median error rate was 23.5% (range, 4.1%-49.8%) for major errors and 9.0% (range, 0%-20.7%) for class I errors. Analyses of diagnostic error rates adjusting for the effects of case mix, country, and autopsy rate yielded relative decreases per decade of 19.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-33.8%) for major errors and 33.4% (95% [CI], 8.4%-51.6%) for class I errors. Despite these decreases, we estimated that a contemporary US institution (based on autopsy rates ranging from 100% [the extrapolated extreme at which clinical selection is eliminated] to 5% [roughly the national average]), could observe a major error rate from 8.4% to 24.4% and a class I error rate from 4.1% to 6.7%.
The possibility that a given autopsy will reveal important unsuspected diagnoses has decreased over time, but remains sufficiently high that encouraging ongoing use of the autopsy appears warranted.
临床诊断与尸检结果之间存在显著差异。尸检可用作质量管理工具,以分析诊断差异。
确定尸检发现重要的、临床上漏诊的疾病的比例,以及该比例随时间的变化情况。
对1966年至2002年4月MEDLINE上可用的英文文章进行系统文献检索,使用检索词尸检、死后变化、尸检、死后、尸体剖检和死后的,共识别出45项研究,报告了53个不同的尸检系列,这些系列符合预先定义的标准。查阅参考文献列表以识别其他研究,并将最终参考文献分发给该领域的专家,以识别缺失或未发表的研究。
纳入的研究报告了涉及主要死因的临床漏诊(重大错误),最严重的是那些可能影响患者预后的漏诊(I类错误)。
使用40年期间53个不同尸检系列的数据进行逻辑回归分析,并对尸检率、国家、病例组合(普通尸检;成人内科;成人重症监护;成人或小儿外科;普通儿科或儿科住院患者;新生儿或儿科重症监护;以及其他尸检)的变化影响以及主要研究的重要方法学特征进行调整。
在识别出的53个尸检系列中,42个报告了重大错误,37个报告了I类错误。26个尸检系列报告了重大错误率和I类错误率。重大错误的中位错误率为23.5%(范围为4.1%-49.8%),I类错误的中位错误率为9.0%(范围为0%-20.7%)。对诊断错误率进行分析,调整病例组合、国家和尸检率的影响后,重大错误每十年相对下降19.4%(95%置信区间[CI],1.8%-33.8%),I类错误每十年相对下降33.4%(95%[CI],8.4%-51.6%)。尽管有这些下降,但我们估计,当代美国机构(基于尸检率从100%[消除临床选择的外推极端情况]到5%[大致为全国平均水平])可能观察到重大错误率在8.4%至24.4%之间,I类错误率在4.1%至6.7%之间。
随着时间的推移,特定尸检揭示重要的未被怀疑的诊断的可能性有所下降,但仍然足够高,因此鼓励继续使用尸检似乎是合理的。