ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2019
Scanning electron microscopy in the identification of fly artifacts.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Morphological characterization using scanning electron microscopy of fly artifacts deposited by Calliphora vomitoria (Diptera: Calliphoridae) on household materials.International journal of legal medicine · 2022Article
- A DNA-based method for distinction of fly artifacts from human bloodstains.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
- Detection of fly artifacts from four species of necrophagous flies on household materials using immunoassays.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bloodstain pattern analysis has a key role in crime scene reconstruction; however, it can be hampered by diverse confounding factors, such as insect activity which may lead to the production of small artifactual bloodstains, commonly referred to as fly artifacts (FA). Although several techniques aimed at distinguishing human bloodstains and FA have been developed, actually, no standardized and reproducible methodology is available. The aim of our study was to test the use of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to distinguish human bloodstains from FA produced by Sarcophaga carnaria. FA and bloodstains have been produced on five different deposition surfaces under experimental conditions. After visual analysis, bloodstains and FA were analyzed at standard low (× 40-× 300) and high (× 600-× 1200) magnification through a Philips SEM 515. Although differential diagnosis between bloodstains and FA resulted often inconclusive at visual analysis, SEM analysis allowed the identification of additional key distinctive morphological features. In particular, on the surface of FA, small crystal-like and/or amorphous material deposits were observed. Such deposits were absent on bloodstains which, on the other hand, displayed red blood cells stacked in "rouleaux." Basing on these results and under our experimental conditions, SEM analysis resulted suitable to perform a differential diagnosis between bloodstains and FA produced from the insect activity of Sarcophaga carnaria.
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.