Clinical vs. autopsy diagnostic discrepancies in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis of autopsy series
Authors' conclusion
Missed diagnoses remain common in ICUs. A higher autopsy rate does not reveal more major diagnostic errors.
Study context
- Population
- Adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent conventional autopsy
- Participants
- 6,305 patients · 42 studies
- Comparison
- Clinical vs autopsy-based diagnoses
- Outcome
- Class I missed diagnoses
Methodological detailsmixed-effects logistic regression, meta-regression
- Mixed-effects logistic regression
- Meta-regression
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Class I missed diagnoses (pooled discrepancy rate)
Pooled Class I discrepancy rate
6.5%
95% CI 5–8.5
Further pooled results
Major missed diagnoses (pooled discrepancy rate)
- Pooled major discrepancy rate
- 19.3% (95% CI 15.3-24)
Patients with missed diagnoses
- Patients with missed diagnoses
- 1759
Meta-regression: autopsy rate
- Autopsy rate inversely associated with discrepancy rate
Meta-regression: start year of study
- Class I discrepancy rates did not change over time
Meta-regression: ICU type
- Lower discrepancy rates in burn and trauma ICUs vs medical ICUs, possibly because of higher autopsy rates
Original publication
Clinical vs. autopsy diagnostic discrepancies in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis of autopsy series. Intensive Care Med. Published 17 September 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →