Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30306346›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2019

Challenges in implementing best practice DVI guidelines in low resource settings: lessons learnt from the Meethotamulla garbage dump mass disaster.

Sameera A Gunawardena, Ravindra Samaranayake, Vianney Dias, Selliah Pranavan, Asela Mendis, Jean Perera

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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

6 authors.

Sameera A GunawardenaDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka. sameera@fortox.cmb.ac.lk.ORCID 0000-0001-9562-0533
Ravindra SamaranayakeDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Vianney DiasDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Selliah PranavanDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Asela MendisDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Jean PereraDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of mass fatalities following disasters is a complex process which requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders and resources. A garbage dump at Meethotamulla in Sri Lanka suddenly collapsed, resulting in the death of 32 individuals. Efforts to implement best practice guidelines in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) during this disaster revealed several important aspects that need to be considered by the forensic community. Delays in initiating the legal processes to investigate and manage the incident resulted in public dissatisfaction towards the post-disaster management process. Body recovery by Police and military personnel without the involvement of medical teams had numerous shortcomings including the lack of proper tagging and photography, commingling of body parts, and non-preservation of personal items. Public expectation and demand for early release of the bodies conflicted with the necessity to undergo a stringent DVI process according to best practice guidelines. Many adaptations and alternate strategies were necessary to ensure that DVI could be done scientifically. The use of primary identification markers including odontology and DNA had many limitations including non-availability of antemortem data, resource availability and cost. Identification was established using a combination of secondary identification markers including clothing, jewelry, scars, tattoos, morphological descriptions and circumstantial evidence. In two cases, odontological features further supported positive identification. Samples for DNA were obtained and preserved but were not utilized in establishing the identities. This paper highlights the need for better public awareness and multidisciplinary commitment in managing mass fatalities and also reflects on the challenges of implementing best practice DVI guidelines in low-resource settings with different legal and socio-cultural expectations.

Indexed as

Body RemainsDisaster VictimsMass Casualty IncidentsBiometric IdentificationDNA FingerprintingForensic SciencesHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicSri LankaDisaster managementMass disaster planning and mitigationVictim identification

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.