Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31239919›Full record

ReviewAcademic forensic pathology2016

Forensic Archaeology and Forensic Taphonomy: Basic Considerations on how to Properly Process and Interpret the Outdoor Forensic Scene.

Dennis C Dirkmaat, Luis L Cabo

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Dennis C DirkmaatMercyhurst University - Applied Forensic Sciences.
Luis L CaboMercyhurst University - Applied Forensic Sciences.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medicolegal death investigation requires a multidisciplinary approach to the collection of data from the crime scene to the autopsy table. Law enforcement processing of the indoor crime scene works extremely well for documenting evidence and producing reconstructions of past events. However, outdoor crime scenes require a new set of scene processing protocols - a need primarily derived from the wider array of natural agents, such as plants, animals, soil chemicals, or environmental conditions that will affect the evidence after burial or deposition outdoors. Forensic archaeology provides the principles, practices, and protocols for documenting and analyzing this type of evidence at a variety of outdoor and other complex crime scenes, including large-scale scene searches, surface-scattered remains, buried body features, fatal fires, and mass disaster scenes. Scene recovery protocols require 1) documentation of the context of the scene, including specific location, local flora and fauna, and geological, geographic, and environmental factors and conditions and 2) detailed notation of the spatial distribution of the evidence in order to establish association of evidence to other evidence and to a particular incident. The discipline of forensic taphonomy provides the techniques and conceptual framework to combine these scene-derived data with laboratory analysis of the biological tissues in order to build and test scientific hypotheses regarding the events surrounding death and deposition. The primary assessments resulting from a forensic taphonomic interpretation include scientific estimates of postmortem interval; whether and how remains have been moved, removed, or altered; and ultimately, whether there is an indication of human intervention.

Indexed as

Context and associationForensic archaeologyForensic pathologyForensic taphonomy

Identifiers

PMID31239919
PMCPMC6474560

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.