ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2008
Comparison of laser and mercury-arc lamp for the detection of body fluids on different substrates.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visualizing old biological traces on different materials without using chemicals.International journal of legal medicine · 2018Article
- Searching for biological traces on different materials using a forensic light source and infrared photography.International journal of legal medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of two detection techniques for body fluids, the Spectra-Physics(R) Revealtrade mark portable forensic laser system and the mercury-arc lamp Lumatec Superlite 400, was evaluated with various biological stains on different substrates. Serial dilutions of neat, 1/10, 1/100 and 1/1,000 using fluid semen, saliva, urine and blood were applied on glazed tiles, glass, PVC, wood, metal, stone, formica, carpet and cotton. Apart from the fact that blood traces were not detectable with the laser, both light sources showed comparable results regarding their detection capability. Clear advantages of the Lumatec Superlite 400, however, are its lower size, weight, purchase costs and the possibility to operate this light source by battery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17968580What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.