ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2020
Implementation of a Blind Quality Control Program in a Forensic Laboratory.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- More skilled, more cautious: Expertise and decision thresholds in fingerprint examination.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Strengthening operational performance in canine detection teams with double-blind certification testing.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- A novel proficiency test to assess the animal diagnostic investigation process in identifying an unknown toxicant.Toxicology reports · 2025Article
- A practical approach to mitigating cognitive bias effects in forensic casework.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- The secret life of crime labs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Scientific guidelines for evaluating the validity of forensic feature-comparison methods.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Interpol Review of Drug Analysis 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Interpol review of forensic management, 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Interpol review of fingermarks and other body impressions 2019 - 2022).Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
- Inconclusives, errors, and error rates in forensic firearms analysis:Three statistical perspectives.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A blind quality control (QC) program was successfully developed and implemented in the Toxicology, Seized Drugs, Firearms, Latent Prints (Processing and Comparison), Forensic Biology, and Multimedia (Digital and Audio/Video) sections at the Houston Forensic Science Center (HFSC). The program was put into practice based on recommendations set forth in the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report and is conducted in addition to accreditation required annual proficiency tests. The blind QC program allows HFSC to test its entire quality management system and provides a real-time assessment of the laboratory's proficiency. To ensure the blind QC cases mimicked real casework, the workflow for each forensic discipline and their evidence submission processes were assessed prior to implementation. Samples are created and submitted by the HFSC Quality Division to whom the expected answer is known. Results from 2015 to 2018 show that of the 973 blind samples submitted, 901 were completed, and only 51 were discovered by analysts as being blind QC cases. Implementation data suggests that this type of program can be employed at other forensic laboratories.
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.