ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2014
Analysis of suspected wildlife crimes submitted for forensic examinations in Scotland.
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 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.
- Forensic findings in urban red fox mortality in the metropolitan area of Madrid, 2014-2022.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2024Article
- Assessment of Google Glass for Photographic Documentation in Veterinary Forensic Pathology: Usability Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2018Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study describes the occurrence of suspected wildlife crimes submitted for forensic examination in Scotland in 2010. The study aims were to determine which types of crimes were committed, which species were targeted, and the outcome of investigations, in order to assess the contribution of forensic examinations in the prosecution of wildlife crimes. Information on suspected wildlife crimes submitted between January 1 and December 31, 2010 to the SAC Consulting: Veterinary Services Disease Surveillance Centers, Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture, and to the University of Glasgow, was used. The location of suspected crimes, the species targeted, cause of death, and types of the 188 submitted wildlife crimes were summarized. More information regarding cases involving birds were submitted than cases involving mammals, and included 114 raptors, 14 waterfowl, and 22 "other bird species." Mammal cases (n = 38) included 12 badgers, 8 foxes, 7 deer, 4 hares, and 7 "other mammals." The cause of death was determined in 124 suspected crimes; malicious or accidental trauma was the most likely cause of death in 72, and 33 were poisoned. Forensic evidence supporting criminal activity was found in 53 cases, and poisoning was the most frequent crime recorded. At least five individuals were successfully prosecuted, representing 2.7 % of submissions. It was challenging to track cases from submission through to prosecution and laboratories conducting forensic investigations were often not informed of the outcome of prosecutions or court decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24935435What 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.