Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19513807›Full record

ArticleExperimental & applied acarology2009

Can freshwater mites act as forensic tools?

Heather C Proctor

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental & applied acarology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Forensic acarology: an introduction.Experimental & applied acarology · 2009
    Article
  3. Carcases and mites.Experimental & applied acarology · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Heather C ProctorDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E9, Canada. hproctor@ualberta.ca

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determination of post-mortem interval often employs analysis of age structure and diversity of saprophilic arthropods (including mites) that have colonized corpses. The majority of research has focused on decomposition processes in terrestrial situations, with relatively few studies on the utility of freshwater invertebrates as forensic agents. Most freshwater mites are predators, detritivores or algivores, and hence seem unlikely candidates as tools for aging or determining original placement of corpses or other bodily remains. The main exceptions to this are some aquatic Astigmata, which have occasionally been observed feeding on the tissues of moribund aquatic animals. Here I investigate Canadian law literature and published forensic research to determine how frequently freshwater mites are included in court cases or are found attending dead bodies. I found only one questionable report of aquatic mites in over 30 years of material from legal databases. Three published research papers reported mites associated with vertebrate flesh in fresh water. Only one paper provided an identification of mites finer than 'Acari' or 'water mites'. In this case, the mites were identified as Hydrozetes (Oribatida). In none of these papers were mites reported to be high in abundance or biomass, and in two of the three publications methodological problems and/or poor reporting of data raised doubts about interpretation of results. I conclude that based on their biology, there is little expectation that freshwater mites should be of great value as forensic tools, and this survey of legal and scientific literature supports my argument.

Indexed as

Forensic SciencesAnimalsFresh WaterHumansMitesPostmortem ChangesVertebrates

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.