Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32734341›Full record

SynthesisPediatric radiology2020

Magnetic resonance imaging for forensic age estimation in living children and young adults: a systematic review.

Jannick De Tobel, Jeroen Bauwens, Griet I L Parmentier, Ademir Franco, Nele S Pauwels, Koenraad L Verstraete, Patrick W Thevissen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pediatric radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
40.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jannick De TobelDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences-Radiology, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. jannick.detobel@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-8846-7339
Jeroen BauwensDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences-Radiology, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Griet I L ParmentierDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences-Radiology, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Ademir FrancoDepartment of Imaging and Pathology-Forensic Odontology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nele S PauwelsGhent Knowledge Centre for Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Koenraad L VerstraeteDepartment of Diagnostic Sciences-Radiology, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Patrick W ThevissenDepartment of Imaging and Pathology-Forensic Odontology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ghent University Hospital · BEKU Leuven · BEMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of MRI in forensic age estimation has been explored extensively during the last decade. The authors of this paper synthesized the available MRI data for forensic age estimation in living children and young adults to provide a comprehensive overview that can guide age estimation practice and future research. To do so, the authors searched MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, along with cited and citing articles and study registers. Two authors independently selected articles, conducted data extraction, and assessed risk of bias. They considered study populations including living subjects up to 30 years old. Fifty-five studies were included in qualitative analysis and 33 in quantitative analysis. Most studies had biases including use of relatively small European (Caucasian) populations, varying MR approaches and varying staging techniques. Therefore, it was not appropriate to pool the age distribution data. The authors found that reproducibility of staging was remarkably lower in clavicles than in any other anatomical structure. Age estimation performance was in line with the gold standard, radiography, with mean absolute errors ranging from 0.85 years to 2.0 years. The proportion of correctly classified minors ranged from 65% to 91%. Multifactorial age estimation performed better than that based on a single anatomical site. The authors found that more multifactorial age estimation studies are necessary, together with studies testing whether the MRI data can safely be pooled. The current review results can guide future studies, help medical professionals to decide on the preferred approach for specific cases, and help judicial professionals to interpret the evidential value of age estimation results.

Indexed as

AdolescentAge Determination by SkeletonBone and BonesChildForensic MedicineHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingYoung AdultAdolescentAge estimationChildForensicMagnetic resonance imagingYoung adult

Identifiers

PMID32734341
OpenAlexW3046024831

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.