Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

OSAC Research Needs Assessment Form

Title of research need:

Keywords:

Submitting subcommittee(s): Date Approved:

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background information:

1. Description of research need:

2. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need:

3a. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

Controversy abounds within forensic pathology and death investigation. Long a discipline in which 

forensic pathologists expressed opinions as facts, forensic pathology is undergoing a gradual transition 

toward evidence-based practice. Despite this trending towards an evidentiary approach to diagnoses, 

limited evidence exists in some subject areas to guide fundamental facets of practice. Emblematic of this 

deficiency is the near-total lack of uniformity in the assessment of necessity for autopsy. Further 

complicating this matter is profession-wide ambiguity about the definition of a complete autopsy. 

Although the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) has developed autopsy standards, a 

general lack of agreement among practitioners still exists regarding what extent of examination should 

be performed in certain types of cases. We take as axiomatic that autopsy is the practice of medicine 

and is performed and interpreted in the context of a medicolegal death investigation.

Possible Study Models to Assess the Utility of Autopsy in Contentious Medicolegal Categories of Death: 

A Report and Recommendations Prepared by the Research Committee of the Scientific Working Group 

on Medicolegal Death Investigation (SWGMDI) [available at swgmdi.org]

What is a complete autopsy? Evan Matshes, Chris Milroy, Jacqueline Parai, Barbara Sampson, Ross 

Reichard, Emma Lew. Acad Forensic Pathol 2011 (1): 2-7

Assessing the utility of autopsy in contentious medicolegal categories of death

 

 

 

 

Autopsy, utility, medicolegal, external examination, inspection

MDI 1/28/16
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

3b. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

3c. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

4. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): 

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.

Major gap 

in current 

knowledge

Minor gap 

in current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research 

is being 

conducted

I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted

II IV

It would not improve laboratory capabilities per se. The point is that we do not have an evidentiary 

basis to make practice decisions on when autopsies should be performed.

An evidentiary basis for practice decisions would clarify the utility of autopsy and allow us to most 

appropriately direct limited resources toward the cases in which the utility is justified.

An evidentiary basis for practice would promote consistency of practice and ensure that the 

appropriate cases are autopsied, in order to be able to answer both the anticipated and the 

unanticipated questions by the criminal justice system.

I
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

// Approval date:

(Approval is by majority vote of subcommittee. Once approved, forward to SAC.)

1. Does the SAC agree with the research need? Yes ⃝ No ⃝ 

2. Does the SAC agree with the status assessment? Yes ⃝ No ⃝ 

If no, what is the status assessment of the SAC:

Approval date:

(Approval is by majority vote of SAC. Once approved, forward to NIST for posting.)

Subcommittee

SAC