ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2020
A novel, 4-h DNA extraction method for STR typing of casework bone samples.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2020. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid on-site universal vertebrate species identification via multi-barcode nanopore sequencing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a flexible DNA extraction (PAN) method for liquid biopsy of multiple sample types.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- Discrimination of highly degraded, aged Asian and African elephant ivory using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE).International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Bones are often found in mass grave crime scene. To increase DNA identification success rates, a highly efficient DNA extraction method should be selected. Several DNA extraction methods for human bones have been published yet never been systematically compared, and some are time-consuming or complex. As such, a quick and highly efficient DNA extraction method was developed and compared with three published methods (Hi-Flow silica-based, total demineralization (TD) and PrepFiler BTA) using 70 fresh and 22 casework bones from different body parts. The highest median DNA concentrations were obtained from developed method (135.85 ng/μL and 0.224 ng/μL for fresh and casework bones, respectively). For residual PCR inhibitors, the threshold cycle (Ct) of the internal positive control (IPC) showed that developed method and PrepFiler BTA removed most PCR inhibitors. Similarly, 95.45% of casework STR profiles obtained using the developed protocol meet the standard requirements for Australian National Criminal Investigative DNA Database (NCIDD) entry, followed by 86.35% using TD, 81.82% using PrepFiler BTA, and 45.45% using Hi-Flow. Additionally, DNA extracts from seven different bones revealed that the 1
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.