ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2014
Sensitivity and specificity of presumptive tests for blood, saliva and semen.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of sensitivity and vestigiality of presumptive tests for swabbed blood stains.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2024Article
- Development of a rapid, in-situ analysis method using sheath-flow probe electrospray ionisation-mass spectrometry for the direct identification of cocaine metabolites in dried blood spots.Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM · 2023Article
- Article
- A proof of principal study on the use of direct PCR of semen and spermatozoa and development of a differential isolation protocol for use in cases of alleged sexual assault.International journal of legal medicine · 2017Article
- Validation of an immunochromatographic D-dimer test to presumptively identify menstrual fluid in forensic exhibits.International journal of legal medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite their wide use, the limits of presumptive tests can be poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the specificity and sensitivity of conventional, as well as innovative, presumptive tests for blood, semen and saliva.
methodsWe investigated Kastle-Meyer (KM) and leucomalachite green (LMG) tests for blood with regard to their sensitivity and specificity in the presence of oxidizing (hypochlorite) and anti-oxidizing (ascorbic acid) agents. The suitability and specificity of the red starch paper (RSP) test for saliva was assessed. Finally, the inhibitory effect of detergent on the acid phosphatase (AP) test for semen was investigated along with possible cross reactions to tea stains.
resultsOur results confirm previous findings of higher sensitivity and specificity of the KM test compared to LMG test for blood. Contrary to previous studies, no statistically significant difference was observed in the sensitivity of the tests between dry and wet stains. The novel RSP test was found to successfully detect saliva. We demonstrated that acid phosphatase (AP) testing for semen is possible on used RSP. A common multipurpose detergent had an inhibitory effect on AP tests. False positive results were obtained from tea stains. Testing different sorts of tea (black, green and herbal teas) revealed that only Camellia varieties produce positive result with the AP test, due to AP being present in the plants.
conclusionsFrom our results we conclude that specific knowledge of each test, including substances that may affect the test outcome, is imperative to ensure correct interpretation of presumptive test results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.