ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2015
Validation of an immunochromatographic D-dimer test to presumptively identify menstrual fluid in forensic exhibits.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2015. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- (Un)Reliable detection of menstrual blood in forensic casework - evaluation of the Seratec® PMB test with mock samples.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- On the Identification of Body Fluids and Tissues: A Crucial Link in the Investigation and Solution of Crime.Genes · 2021Review
- Forensic differentiation between peripheral and menstrual blood in cases of alleged sexual assault-validating an immunochromatographic multiplex assay for simultaneous detection of human hemoglobin and D-dimer.International journal of legal medicine · 2018Article
- Marker evaluation for differentiation of blood and menstrual fluid by methylation-sensitive SNaPshot analysis.International journal of legal medicine · 2018Article
- Improving body fluid identification in forensic trace evidence-construction of an immunochromatographic test array to rapidly detect up to five body fluids simultaneously.International journal of legal medicine · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying the biological source of a crime scene stain can be crucial for police investigations in many scenarios. Blood is one of the most common fluids found, and accurate differentiation between peripheral blood and menstrual fluid could provide valuable information regarding the issue of consent in sexual assault cases. For the detection of menstrual fluid, no easy-to-use presumptive test is available to date. Therefore, this study aimed to validate a simple immunochromatographic test for the indication of menstrual fluid, focusing on a D-dimer assay. The Clearview® rapid D-dimer test provides a diagnostic assay for the detection of fibrin degradation products. We validated the sensitivity and robustness of the assay using fresh and dried menstrual fluid samples, body fluid mixtures, diluted samples, and casework swabs. Cross reactivity was tested for saliva, semen, vaginal fluid, and blood. No false positive results were obtained; it was possible to successfully analyze mixtures, highly diluted samples, and casework swabs. The results of this study indicate that the D-dimer assay reliably detects menstrual fluid in forensic exhibits and is easy to implement into the current workflow of body fluid identification.
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.