PLoS ONE (Jan 2012)

Who is at risk for diagnostic discrepancies? Comparison of pre- and postmortal diagnoses in 1800 patients of 3 medical decades in East and West Berlin.

  • Daniel Wittschieber,
  • Frederick Klauschen,
  • Anna-Christin Kimmritz,
  • Moritz von Winterfeld,
  • Carsten Kamphues,
  • Hans-Joachim Scholman,
  • Andreas Erbersdobler,
  • Heidi Pfeiffer,
  • Carsten Denkert,
  • Manfred Dietel,
  • Wilko Weichert,
  • Jan Budczies,
  • Albrecht Stenzinger

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037460
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 5
p. e37460

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundAutopsy rates in Western countries consistently decline to an average of Methods and findingsOf all adult autopsy cases of the Charité Institute of Pathology from the years 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003 and 2008, the pre- and postmortal diagnoses and all demographic data were analyzed retrospectively. Based on power analysis, 1,800 cases were randomly selected to perform discrepancy classification (class I-VI) according to modified Goldman criteria. The rate of discrepancies in major diagnoses (class I) was 10.7% (95% CI: 7.7%-14.7%) in 2008 representing a reduction by 15.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed several influencing factors to significantly correlate with the discrepancy rate. Cardiovascular diseases had the highest frequency among class-I-discrepancies. Comparing the 1988-data of East- and West-Berlin, no significant differences were found in diagnostic discrepancies despite an autopsy rate differing by nearly 50%. A risk profile analysis visualized by intuitive heatmaps revealed a significantly high discrepancy rate in patients treated in low or intermediate care units at community hospitals. In this collective, patients with genitourinary/renal or infectious diseases were at particularly high risk.ConclusionsThis is the current largest and most comprehensive study on diagnostic discrepancies worldwide. Our well-powered analysis revealed a significant rate of class-I-discrepancies indicating that autopsies are still of value. The identified risk profiles may aid both pathologists and clinicians to identify patients at increased risk for a discrepant diagnosis and possibly suboptimal treatment intra vitam.