Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23842668›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2013

Forensic entomology: implementing quality assurance for expertise work.

Emmanuel Gaudry, Laurent Dourel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Temperature: the weak point of forensic entomology.International journal of legal medicine · 2019
    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

2 authors.

Emmanuel GaudryDépartement Entomologie, Institut de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie Nationale, Rosny-Sous-Bois Cedex, France. emmanuel.gaudry@gendarmerie.interieur.gouv.fr
Laurent Dourel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Department of Forensic Entomology (Institut de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie Nationale, France) was accredited by the French Committee of Accreditation (Cofrac's Healthcare section) in October 2007 on the basis of NF EN ISO/CEI 17025 standard. It was the first accreditation in this specific field of forensic sciences in France and in Europe. The present paper introduces the accreditation process in forensic entomology (FE) through the experience of the Department of Forensic Entomology. Based upon the identification of necrophagous insects and the study of their biology, FE must, as any other expertise work in forensic sciences, demonstrate integrity and good working practice to satisfy both the courts and the scientific community. FE does not, strictly speaking, follow an analytical method. This could explain why, to make up for a lack of appropriate quality reference, a specific documentation was drafted and written by the staff of the Department of Forensic Entomology in order to define working methods complying with quality standards (testing methods). A quality assurance system is laborious to set up and maintain and can be perceived as complex, time-consuming and never-ending. However, a survey performed in 2011 revealed that the accreditation process in the frame of expertise work has led to new well-defined working habits, based on an effort at transparency. It also requires constant questioning and a proactive approach, both profitable for customers (magistrates, investigators) and analysts (forensic entomologists).

Indexed as

Quality ControlAccreditationAnimalsCertificationEntomologyFeedbackFeeding BehaviorForensic AnthropologyForensic PathologyFranceHumansLaboratoriesManagement AuditPostmortem ChangesProfessional CompetenceTemperature

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.