Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32885160›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2020

Collaborative versus traditional method validation approach: Discussion and business case.

Ray Wickenheiser, Laurel Farrell

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Reimagining forensic science - The mission of the forensic laboratory.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ray WickenheiserNew York State Police Crime Laboratory System, Albany, NY, USA.
Laurel FarrellANSI National Accreditation Board, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For accredited crime laboratories and other Forensic Science Service Providers (FSSPs) performing a method validation can be a time consuming and laborious process, particularly when performed independently by an individual FSSP. In this proposed collaborative method validation model, FSSPs performing the same task using the same technology are encouraged to work together cooperatively to permit standardization and sharing of common methodology to increase efficiency for conducting validations and implementation. FSSPs following applicable standards that are early to validate a method incorporating a new technology, platform, kit, or reagents are encouraged to publish their work in a recognized peer reviewed journal. Publication of validation data provides communication of technological improvements and allows reviews by others that supports the establishment of validity. It also permits other FSSPs to conduct a much more abbreviated method validation, a verification, if they adhere strictly to the method parameters provided in the publication by the original FSSP. By completing this verification, the second FSSP has reviewed and accepts the original published data and findings, thereby eliminating significant method development work. Utilization of published validation data increases efficiency through shared experiences and provides a cross check of original validity to benchmarks established by the originating FSSP. Utilization of the same method and same parameter set enables direct cross comparison of data and ongoing improvements. A business case will be provided to demonstrate the cost savings of the collaborative validation model using salary, sample and opportunity cost bases.

Indexed as

Business caseCollaborative validationMethod validationValidationVerification

Identifiers

PMID32885160
PMCPMC7452674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.