Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32490306›Full record

ReviewForensic sciences research2020

Vitality and wound-age estimation in forensic pathology: review and future prospects.

Na Li, Qiuxiang Du, Rufeng Bai, Junhong Sun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic sciences research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Polymeric Nanoparticles for Wound Healing.Pharmaceutical nanotechnology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Cytokines as new biomarkers of skin wound vitality.International journal of legal medicine · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Na LiDepartment of Forensic Pathology, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.
Qiuxiang DuDepartment of Forensic Pathology, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.
Rufeng BaiKey Laboratory of Evidence Science, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China.
Junhong SunDepartment of Forensic Pathology, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6970-2620

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining the age of a wound is challenging in forensic pathology, but it can contribute to the reconstruction of crime scenes and lead to arrest of suspects. Forensic scholars have tended to focus on evaluating wound vitality and determining the time elapsed since the wound was sustained. Recent progress in forensic techniques, particularly high-throughput analyses, has enabled evaluation of materials at the cellular and molecular levels, as well as simultaneous assessment of multiple markers. This paper provides an update on wound-age estimation in forensic pathology, summarizes the recent literature, and considers useful additional information provided by each marker. Finally, the future prospects for estimating wound age in forensic practise are discussed with the hope of providing something useful for further study.

Indexed as

estimationforensic pathologyForensic sciencesvitalitywound age

Identifiers

PMID32490306
PMCPMC7241561

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.