Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27757574›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2017

A comparison of carcass decomposition and associated insect succession onto burnt and unburnt pig carcasses.

Craig S McIntosh, Ian R Dadour, Sasha C Voss

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. "Omics" and Postmortem Interval Estimation: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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.

Craig S McIntoshCentre for Forensic Anatomy and Biological Sciences, School of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. craig.mcintosh@uwa.edu.au.
Ian R DadourProgram in Forensic Anthropology, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Sasha C VossCentre for Forensic Anatomy and Biological Sciences, School of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rate of decomposition and insect succession onto decomposing pig carcasses were investigated following burning of carcasses. Ten pig carcasses (40-45 kg) were exposed to insect activity during autumn (March-April) in Western Australia. Five replicates were burnt to a degree described by the Crow-Glassman Scale (CGS) level #2, while five carcasses were left unburnt as controls. Burning carcasses greatly accelerated decomposition in contrast to unburnt carcasses. Physical modifications following burning such as skin discolouration, splitting of abdominal tissue and leathery consolidation of skin eliminated evidence of bloat and altered microambient temperatures associated with carcasses throughout decomposition. Insect species identified on carcasses were consistent between treatment groups; however, a statistically significant difference in insect succession onto remains was evident between treatments (PERMANOVA F

Indexed as

ColeopteraCremationDipteraFeeding BehaviorPostmortem ChangesAnimalsCase-Control StudiesEntomologyForensic SciencesSwineWestern AustraliaBurntForensic entomologyInsect succession and decompositionPost-mortem interval

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.