Section of Legal Medicine, School of Law, University of Camerino, Piazza Cavour, 19, 62032 Camerino, Italy.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 17;19(18):11749. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811749.
Autopsy examination, the gold standard for defining causes of death, is often difficult to apply in certain health care settings, especially in developing countries. The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated difficulties in terms of implementing autopsy examinations have made the need for alternative means of determining causes of death even more evident. One of the most interesting alternatives to the conventional autopsy is the verbal autopsy, a tool that originated in Africa and Asia in the 1950s and consists of a structured interview with the deceased's family members concerning the symptoms manifested by the person and the circumstances of death. In the early 1990s, the first doubts emerged about the validity of verbal autopsies, especially about the real reliability of the cause of death identified through this tool. The objective of the review was to identify studies that had assayed the validity of verbal autopsies through a rigorous comparison of the results that emerged from it with the results of conventional autopsies. When starting from an initial pool of 256 articles, only 2 articles were selected for final review. These are the only two original research articles in which a verbal autopsy validation process was performed by employing the full diagnostic autopsy as the gold standard. The two papers reached opposite conclusions, one suggesting adequate validity of verbal autopsy in defining the cause of death and the other casting serious doubts on the real applicability of this tool. Verbal autopsy undoubtedly has extraordinary potential, especially in the area of health and demographic surveillance, even considering the implementation that could result from the use of artificial intelligence and deep learning. However, at present, there appears to be a lack of solid data to support the robust reliability of this tool in defining causes of death.
尸检检查是确定死因的金标准,但在某些医疗保健环境中,尤其是在发展中国家,往往难以实施。COVID-19 大流行及其在实施尸检方面的相关困难,使得确定死因的替代方法变得更加必要。传统尸检的最有趣替代方法之一是口述尸检,这是一种起源于 20 世纪 50 年代非洲和亚洲的工具,由对死者家属进行结构化访谈组成,询问死者表现出的症状和死亡情况。20 世纪 90 年代初,人们首次对口述尸检的有效性产生了怀疑,尤其是对通过该工具确定死因的真实可靠性产生了怀疑。本次综述的目的是确定通过与传统尸检结果进行严格比较来评估口述尸检有效性的研究。从最初的 256 篇文章中,仅选择了 2 篇文章进行最终综述。这是仅有的两篇原始研究文章,其中通过使用全诊断尸检作为金标准,对口述尸检的验证过程进行了研究。这两篇论文得出了相反的结论,一篇认为口述尸检在定义死因方面具有足够的有效性,另一篇则对该工具的实际适用性提出了严重质疑。口述尸检无疑具有非凡的潜力,尤其是在健康和人口监测领域,即使考虑到人工智能和深度学习的应用可能带来的实施效果。然而,目前似乎缺乏支持该工具在定义死因方面具有可靠可靠性的坚实数据。