Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32268922›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2020

Protocol for a scoping review of the current data practices in forensic medicine.

Salona Prahladh, Jacqueline van Wyk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Salona PrahladhDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital, 800 Vusi Mzimela Rd, Umkumbaan, Durban, 4091, South Africa. sprahladh@gmail.com.
Jacqueline van WykDiscipline of Clinical and Professional Practice, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData related to forensic postmortems or autopsies are still mainly captured in hard copy format and archived. This paper-based practice impacts on the practitioner's ability to report on incidence, prevalence, and statistical trends related to cases that are commonly seen in mortuaries in forensic medicine. An autopsy can be used to inform and provide evidence-based knowledge for further research about important issues, including social development and assist in providing statistics and data for public health initiatives for implementation and monitoring. Currently, in forensic medicine and pathology research developments are largely hampered by the inefficient data capturing system which only allows access to basic information while pertinent information is largely recorded manually and is therefore difficult to obtain. There is thus a need to improve the efficiency of the data capturing system in forensic pathology, and this review is intended to inform the choice and decisions of appropriate data capture practices and is being conducted to identify nationally and internationally the current data mining and storage systems in place.

methodsThe methodology for this scoping review will be guided by the methodological framework for scoping review. The search strategy was developed by the authors, and we will conduct a search from 1 January 2008 of electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct) and search through WorldCat and PubMed for citations and literature using both keywords and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH).The electronic search will be supplemented by hand searching references of the included studies and references in journals and websites. All articles will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers (the primary and secondary authors) and uploaded into EndNote Excel spreadsheet, and duplicates will be identified and removed. The two reviewers (primary and secondary authors) will screen the eligible abstracts and articles against the inclusion criteria, and selection will be on a minimum percentage agreement of 50%. The selection process will be documented by following and using a PRISMA flow diagram. The extracted data will be analyzed and reported in the form of a narrative review with descriptive analysis and text analysis once the data is summarized for description and characterization. DISCUSSION: The results of this review will identify and describe data capturing, management, and storage practices for use in forensic medicine. It will also review the efficiency of the different data systems and report where possible on the uses of the data system within the forensic medicine and pathology field. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Although research ethics approval is not required for this scoping review because the study will not include human or animal participants, the study was submitted for approval to the University of Kwazulu Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee and obtained provisional approval. Data will be sourced only from published literature and gray literature. The results will be presented at relevant national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. All search results including excluded studies will be added into an addendum in the article and made available for public perusal to therefore ensure transparency and reproducibility.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareResearch DesignForensic MedicineHumansReproducibility of ResultsScoping Reviews as TopicAutopsyDataDatabaseForensic medicineForensic pathologyPostmortem examination

Identifiers

PMID32268922
PMCPMC7140479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.