ArticleCroatian medical journal2017
Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of face-derived DNA on touch DNA deposition on cell phone screens.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of DNA collection techniques applied to disposable 3-layer earloop face masks.Forensic sciences research · 2025Article
- Comparison of swabbing and cutting-out DNA collection methods from cotton, paper, and cardboard surfaces.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Article
- Comparison of the M-VacJournal of forensic sciences · 2020Article
- Touch DNA: impact of handling time on touch deposit and evaluation of different recovery techniques: An experimental study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo select appropriate preprocessing methods for different substrates by comparing the effects of four different preprocessing methods on touch DNA samples and to determine the effect of various storage times on the results of touch DNA sample analysis.
methodHand touch DNA samples were used to investigate the detection and inspection results of DNA on different substrates. Four preprocessing methods, including the direct cutting method, stubbing procedure, double swab technique, and vacuum cleaner method, were used in this study. DNA was extracted from mock samples with four different preprocessing methods. The best preprocess protocol determined from the study was further used to compare performance after various storage times. DNA extracted from all samples was quantified and amplified using standard procedures.
resultsThe amounts of DNA and the number of alleles detected on the porous substrates were greater than those on the non-porous substrates. The performances of the four preprocessing methods varied with different substrates. The direct cutting method displayed advantages for porous substrates, and the vacuum cleaner method was advantageous for non-porous substrates. No significant degradation trend was observed as the storage times increased.
conclusionDifferent substrates require the use of different preprocessing method in order to obtain the highest DNA amount and allele number from touch DNA samples. This study provides a theoretical basis for explorations of touch DNA samples and may be used as a reference when dealing with touch DNA samples in case work.
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.