Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26293169›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2016

An Improved Equation for TBS and ADD: Establishing a Reliable Postmortem Interval Framework for Casework and Experimental Studies.

Colin Moffatt, Tal Simmons, Jeanne Lynch-Aird

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Forensic taphonomy and stable isotopes: δInternational journal of legal medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Colin MoffattSchool of Forensic and Applied Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Tal SimmonsDepartment of Forensic Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA.
Jeanne Lynch-AirdSchool of Forensic and Applied Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Megyesi et al.'s (J Forensic Sci, 2005, 50, 618) paper was important to forensic anthropology as it introduced a quantitative framework for estimating time since death in human cadavers, based upon physical appearance by way of scoring on a novel scale. However, errors concerning rounding, temperature scale, and incorrect use of a statistical regression model render their predictive formula unusable. Based upon only their more reliable data, a more appropriate regression model to predict accumulated degree days (ADD) from total body score (TBS) is presented. The new model is also a superior fit (r(2)  = 0.91) and produces markedly narrower confidence intervals than the original, which also allowed impossible, negative ADD values. Explanations of the shortcomings in the original analysis and calculations are presented, which it is hoped will help forensic scientists avoid making similar mistakes.

Indexed as

Forensic PathologyPostmortem ChangesAutopsyForensic AnthropologyHumansTemperatureaccumulated degree daysdecompositionforensic scienceforensic taphonomyinverse predictionregression modelsstatistical models

Identifiers

PMID26293169

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.