Search

Background: Clinico-pathological discrepancies are more frequent in settings in which limited diagnostic techniques are available, but there is little information on their actual impact. Aim: We assessed the accuracy of the clinical diagnoses in a tertiary referral hospital in sub-Saharan Africa by comparison with post-mortem findings. We also identified potential risk factors for misdiagnoses. Methods: One hundred and twelve complete autopsy procedures were performed at the Maputo Central Hospital (Mozambique), from November 2013 to March 2015. We reviewed the clinical records. Major clinico-pathological discrepancies were assessed using a modified version of the Goldman and Battle classification. Results: Major diagnostic discrepancies were detected in 65/112 cases (58%) and were particularly frequent in infection-related deaths (56/80 [70%] major discrepancies). The sensitivity of the clinical diagnosis for toxoplasmosis was 0% (95% CI: 0–37), 18% (95% CI: 2–52) for invasive fungal infections, 25% (95% CI: 5–57) for bacterial sepsis, 34% (95% CI: 16–57), for tuberculosis, and 46% (95% CI: 19–75) for bacterial pneumonia. Major discrepancies were more frequent in HIV-positive than in HIV-negative patients (48/73 [66%] vs. 17/39 [44%]; p = 0.0236). Conclusions: Major clinico-pathological discrepancies are still frequent in resource constrained settings. Increasing the level of suspicion for infectious diseases and expanding the availability of diagnostic tests could significantly improve the recognition of common life-threatening infections, and thereby reduce the mortality associated with these diseases. The high frequency of clinico-pathological discrepancies questions the validity of mortality reports based on clinical data or verbal autopsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over 5 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur annually. Limited and imprecise information on the cause of these deaths hampers progress in achieving global health targets. Complete diagnostic autopsies (CDAs)-the gold standard for cause of death determination-are difficult to perform in most high-burden settings. Therefore, validation of simpler and more feasible methods is needed.Methods and Findings: In this observational study, the validity of a minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) method in determining the cause of death was assessed in 18 stillbirths and 41 neonatal deaths by comparing the results of the MIA with those of the CDA. Concordance between the categories of diseases obtained by the 2 methods was assessed by the Kappa statistic, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the MIA diagnoses were calculated. A cause of death was identified in 16/18 (89%) and 15/18 (83%) stillborn babies in the CDA and the MIA, respectively. Fetal growth restriction accounted for 39%, infectious diseases for 22%, intrapartum hypoxia for 17%, and intrauterine hypoxia for 11% of stillborn babies. Overall, the MIA showed in this group a substantial concordance with the CDA (Kappa = 0.78, 95% CI [0.56-0.99]). A cause of death was identified in all (100%) and 35/41 (85%) neonatal deaths in the CDA and the MIA, respectively. In this group, the majority of deaths were due to infectious diseases (66%). The overall concordance of the MIA with the CDA in neonates was moderate (Kappa = 0.40, 95% CI [0.18-0.63]). A high percentage of accuracy was observed for the MIA in all the diagnostic categories in both stillbirths and neonates (>75%). The main limitation of this study is that some degree of subjective interpretation is inherent to cause-of-death attribution in both the MIA and the CDA; this is especially so in stillbirths and in relation to fetal growth restriction.Conclusions: The MIA could be a useful tool for cause-of-death determination in stillbirths and neonatal deaths. These findings may help to accelerate progress towards meeting global health targets by obtaining more accurate information on the causes of death in these age groups, which is essential in guiding the design of new interventions and increasing the effectiveness of those already implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an urgent need to identify tools able to provide reliable information on the cause of death in low-income regions, since current methods (verbal autopsy, clinical records, and complete autopsies) are either inaccurate, not feasible, or poorly accepted. We aimed to compare the performance of a standardized minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) approach with that of the gold standard, the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA), in a series of adults who died at Maputo Central Hospital in Mozambique.Methods and Findings: In this observational study, coupled MIAs and CDAs were performed in 112 deceased patients. The MIA analyses were done blindly, without knowledge of the clinical data or the results of the CDA. We compared the MIA diagnosis with the CDA diagnosis of cause of death. CDA diagnoses comprised infectious diseases (80; 71.4%), malignant tumors (16; 14.3%), and other diseases, including non-infectious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, kidney, and lung diseases (16; 14.3%). A MIA diagnosis was obtained in 100/112 (89.2%) cases. The overall concordance between the MIA diagnosis and CDA diagnosis was 75.9% (85/112). The concordance was higher for infectious diseases and malignant tumors (63/80 [78.8%] and 13/16 [81.3%], respectively) than for other diseases (9/16; 56.2%). The specific microorganisms causing death were identified in the MIA in 62/74 (83.8%) of the infectious disease deaths with a recognized cause. The main limitation of the analysis is that both the MIA and the CDA include some degree of expert subjective interpretation.Conclusions: A simple MIA procedure can identify the cause of death in many adult deaths in Mozambique. This tool could have a major role in improving the understanding and surveillance of causes of death in areas where infectious diseases are a common cause of mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite global health efforts to reduce maternal mortality, rates continue to be unacceptably high in large parts of the world. Feasible, acceptable, and accurate postmortem sampling methods could provide the necessary evidence to improve the understanding of the real causes of maternal mortality, guiding the design of interventions to reduce this burden.Methods and Findings: The validity of a minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) method in determining the cause of death was assessed in an observational study in 57 maternal deaths by comparing the results of the MIA with those of the gold standard (complete diagnostic autopsy [CDA], which includes any available clinical information). Concordance between the MIA and the gold standard diagnostic categories was assessed by the kappa statistic, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to identify the categories of diagnoses were estimated. The main limitation of the study is that both the MIA and the CDA include some degree of subjective interpretation in the attribution of cause of death. A cause of death was identified in the CDA in 98% (56/57) of cases, with indirect obstetric conditions accounting for 32 (56%) deaths and direct obstetric complications for 24 (42%) deaths. Nonobstetric infectious diseases (22/32, 69%) and obstetric hemorrhage (13/24, 54%) were the most common causes of death among indirect and direct obstetric conditions, respectively. Thirty-six (63%) women were HIV positive, and HIV-related conditions accounted for 16 (28%) of all deaths. Cerebral malaria caused 4 (7%) deaths. The MIA identified a cause of death in 86% of women. The overall concordance of the MIA with the CDA was moderate (kappa = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31-0.66). Both methods agreed in 68% of the diagnostic categories and the agreement was higher for indirect (91%) than for direct obstetric causes (38%). All HIV infections and cerebral malaria cases were identified in the MIA. The main limitation of the technique is its relatively low performance for identifying obstetric causes of death in the absence of clinical information.Conclusions: The MIA procedure could be a valuable tool to determine the causes of maternal death, especially for indirect obstetric conditions, most of which are infectious diseases. The information provided by the MIA could help to prioritize interventions to reduce maternal mortality and to monitor progress towards achieving global health targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]