ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2008
DNA reviews: DNA identification following CBRN incidents.
Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chemical, biological, radioactive, or nuclear (CBRN) incidents can occur due to accident or deliberate action, and may result in substantial loss of life. Whatever the cause, the requirement for identification of the deceased may necessitate the removal of contaminated samples to a DNA laboratory for processing. This review looks at the potential types of CBRN that may result in the requirement for DNA identification of the deceased and investigates the potential risks and difficulties associated with processing samples of this type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19291448What 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.