Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29516250›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2019

Forensic reconstruction of two military combat related shooting incidents using an anatomically correct synthetic skull with a surrogate skin/soft tissue layer.

Peter Mahoney, Debra Carr, Karl Harrison, Ruth McGuire, Alan Hepper, Daniel Flynn, Russ J Delaney, Iain Gibb

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Interpol review of forensic firearm examination 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Peter MahoneyCranfield Forensic Institute, Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Shrivenham, Swindon, SN6 8LA, UK. p.f.mahoney@cranfield.ac.uk.
Debra CarrCentre for Defence Engineering, Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Shrivenham, Swindon, SN6 8LA, UK.
Karl HarrisonCranfield Forensic Institute, Cranfield University at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Shrivenham, Swindon, SN6 8LA, UK.
Ruth McGuireDefence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 0JQ, UK.
Alan HepperDefence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 0JQ, UK.
Daniel FlynnCranfield Ordnance Testing and Evaluation Centre (COTEC), Cranfield University, West Lavington, Devizes, Wiltshire, SN10 4NA, UK.
Russ J DelaneySouth West Forensic Pathology Group Practice, Box 388, Bristol, PO, BS9 0DB, UK.
Iain GibbX-ray Department, Medical Centre, HMS Nelson, HM Naval Base Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO1 3HH, UK.
Cranfield University · GBDefence Science and Technology Laboratory · GBDefence Academy of the United Kingdom · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Six synthetic head models wearing ballistic protective helmets were used to recreate two military combat-related shooting incidents (three per incident, designated 'Incident 1' and 'Incident 2'). Data on the events including engagement distances, weapon and ammunition types was collated by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. The models were shot with 7.62 × 39 mm ammunition downloaded to mean impact velocities of 581 m/s (SD 3.5 m/s) and 418 m/s (SD 8 m/s), respectively, to simulate the engagement distances. The damage to the models was assessed using CT imaging and dissection by a forensic pathologist experienced in reviewing military gunshot wounds. The helmets were examined by an MoD engineer experienced in ballistic incident analysis. Damage to the helmets was consistent with that seen in real incidents. Fracture patterns and CT imaging on two of the models for Incident 1 (a frontal impact) were congruent with the actual incident being modelled. The results for Incident 2 (a temporoparietal impact) produced realistic simulations of tangential gunshot injury but were less representative of the scenario being modelled. Other aspects of the wounds produced also exhibited differences. Further work is ongoing to develop the models for greater ballistic injury fidelity.

Indexed as

Head Protective DevicesModels, BiologicalForensic BallisticsForensic PathologyHead Injuries, PenetratingHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMilitary PersonnelPolyurethanesSkullSoftwareTomography, X-Ray ComputedWounds, GunshotPolyurethanesBallisticCranial traumaHelmetHuman head surrogateSimulation

Identifiers

PMID29516250
PMCPMC6342880
OpenAlexW2792832445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.