Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31239871›Full record

ReviewAcademic forensic pathology2016

Postmortem Change and its Effect on Evaluation of Fractures.

Walter L Kemp

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Academic forensic pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. State-of-the-Art on Wound Vitality Evaluation: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Hidden lesions: a case of burnt remains.Forensic sciences research · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Walter L KempDepartment of Pathology, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postmortem changes can both mask and mimic trauma, impairing interpretation of the injuries. Bones, while capable of surviving the postmortem period relatively intact, are not immune from these effects. Without attached soft tissue to aid an examiner, it can be difficult to determine the time frame of a fracture's occurrence (i.e., before death, at death, or after death). Bones are composed of both organic and inorganic material, each of which contribute to the biomechanical properties of the bones. With the loss of organic material, the biomechanical response of bones to trauma changes; however, the organic material can remain a part of the bone for an extended period after death. Bone with intact organic material is wet bone, and bone without the organic material is dry bone, and because of this difference, fractures of wet bone can appear different than fractures of dry bone. Important in distinguishing the two are differential coloration, various features of the fracture itself (e.g., angle, surface, outline), surrounding flaking of the cortex, and incomplete separation of bone fragments from the fracture. However, the changes are not absolute, and determination of the two types of fractures can be problematic. Although the terms antemortem, perimortem, and postmortem have been used to describe the general time frame of fractures in relation to the time of death of the individual, because of confusion among specialties regarding the definition of "perimortem," its use may best be discontinued in favor of a descriptive approach when fractures are identified in skeletal remains.

Indexed as

AnthropologyForensic pathologyFracturesPerimortemPostmortem changes

Identifiers

PMID31239871
PMCPMC6474516

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.