ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2018
Impact of several wearers on the persistence of DNA on clothes-a study with experimental scenarios.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Self- and non-self-DNA on hands and sleeve cuffs.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- "I've never been at the crime scene!" - gloves as carriers for secondary DNA transfer.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
- Interpol review of forensic biology and forensic DNA typing 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The detection of DNA of a certain person on the inside of a piece of clothing involved in a crime scene is usually seen as confirmation that this person is the owner or bearer and therefore participated in this crime. However, besides the possibilities of secondary or even tertiary transfer of DNA, the accused often argues that he lent the garment to another person who by chance did not leave any DNA while committing the crime. Then, forensic genetic scientists have to answer the question how long DNA persists on an item used in daily routine and how long a piece of clothing must be worn to definitively leave detectable DNA behind. In an attempt to answer these questions, several scenarios with two or three individuals wearing the same sweatband for different time periods were set up. DNA left on the sweatbands was isolated, quantified, and then analyzed using the Powerplex® ESX17fast kit. The majority of samples displayed all alleles of both/all three wearers on the outside (67%) as well as on the inside (80%) of the sweatbands. In contrast, a single profile of the first wearer could only be found once among all 204 samples, a single profile of the second wearer in 7% of samples. Wearing the sweatband for only 10 min was enough to result in a complete profile of the second wearer in 79% of samples. So, it is highly unlikely to wear/use a piece of clothing for even a short period of time without leaving own DNA behind.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29151121What 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.