Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31049663›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2019

Radiological investigation of gunshot wounds: a systematic review of published evidence.

Arianna Giorgetti, Chiara Giraudo, Alessia Viero, Marco Bisceglia, Amalia Lupi, Paolo Fais, Emilio Quaia, Massimo Montisci, Giovanni Cecchetto, Guido Viel

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Arrow entrance wounds with blackened margins simulating bullet wipe.International journal of legal medicine · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. [Forensic-radiological diagnosis of gunshot wounds].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Interpol review of forensic firearm examination 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Arianna GiorgettiDepartment of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121, Padova, Italy.
Chiara GiraudoInstitute of Radiology, Department of Medicine (DiMED), University-Hospital Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128, Padova, Italy.
Alessia VieroDepartment of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121, Padova, Italy.
Marco BiscegliaDepartment of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121, Padova, Italy.
Amalia LupiInstitute of Radiology, Department of Medicine (DiMED), University-Hospital Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128, Padova, Italy.
Paolo FaisDIMEC, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40126, Bologna, Italy.
Emilio QuaiaInstitute of Radiology, Department of Medicine (DiMED), University-Hospital Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128, Padova, Italy.
Massimo MontisciDepartment of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121, Padova, Italy.
Giovanni CecchettoDepartment of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121, Padova, Italy.
Guido VielDepartment of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121, Padova, Italy. guido.viel@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9769-535X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite the constantly growing popularity of radiological imaging in forensic pathology, a systematic review investigating the efficiency and limits of radiological techniques, in comparison to forensic autopsy, was still missing.

aimThe present review aims at providing an overview on the current role of radiology in the forensic investigation of fatal gunshot wounds without any restriction to specific radiological techniques. MATERIAL AND

methodsA systematic literature search on three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct) was performed until December 2017. The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) grading system for levels of evidence was applied, in order to weigh published evidence. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Eighty-six papers (1.64% of the records) were included. Despite the quite limited general level of evidence, which contrasts with the abundance of the scientific literature on this topic, several recommendations/statements, coupled to their OCEBM grade, were distilled as for the identification of retained bullets, gunshot wounds detection, diagnosis of entrance and exit wounds, trajectories and internal injury detection and estimation of the firing distance.

conclusionsImaging radiological technologies represent the present and future of wound ballistics. However, traditional, micro and molecular imaging techniques require further validation through blinded cross-sectional studies with appropriate reference standards (e.g. forensic autopsy).

Indexed as

Forensic BallisticsForensic PathologyHumansRadiographyWounds, GunshotFirearmForensic pathologyForensic radiologySystematic reviewTerminal ballistics

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.