Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26108152›Full record

ReviewLa Radiologia medica2015

Postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) and disaster victim identification.

A L Brough, B Morgan, G N Rutty

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in La Radiologia medica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Postmortem CT: Applications in Clinical and Forensic Medicine.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc · 2025
    Review
  3. The current state of forensic imaging - post mortem imaging.International journal of legal medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Connected to the cloud at time of death: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. State of the art in post-mortem computed tomography: a review of current literature.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

3 authors.

A L BroughEast Midlands Forensic Pathology Unit, University of Leicester, Robert Kilpatrick Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK, alb39@le.ac.uk.
B Morgan
G N Rutty

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiography has been used for identification since 1927, and established a role in mass fatality investigations in 1949. More recently, postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) has been used for disaster victim identification (DVI). PMCT offers several advantages compared with fluoroscopy, plain film and dental X-rays, including: speed, reducing the number of on-site personnel and imaging modalities required, making it potentially more efficient. However, there are limitations that inhibit the international adoption of PMCT into routine practice. One particular problem is that due to the fact that forensic radiology is a relatively new sub-speciality, there are no internationally established standards for image acquisition, image interpretation and archiving. This is reflected by the current INTERPOL DVI form, which does not contain a PMCT section. The DVI working group of the International Society of Forensic Radiology and Imaging supports the use of imaging in mass fatality response and has published positional statements in this area. This review will discuss forensic radiology, PMCT, and its role in disaster victim identification.

Indexed as

DisastersMass Casualty IncidentsForensic MedicineHumansPostmortem ChangesTomography, X-Ray Computed

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.