Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33224550›Full record

ReviewForensic sciences research2020

Disaster victim identification operations with fragmented, burnt, or commingled remains: experience-based recommendations.

Hans H de Boer, Julie Roberts, Tania Delabarde, Amy Z Mundorff, Soren Blau

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 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Multidisciplinary Forensic Approach in "Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  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

5 authors.

Hans H de BoerDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Netherlands Forensic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8590-0945
Julie RobertsFaculty of Science, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6838-216X
Tania DelabardeInstitut Médico-Légal de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6331-5526
Amy Z MundorffDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Soren BlauDepartment of Forensic Services, Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6499-7741

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human-made and natural disasters can result in severely fragmented, compromised, and commingled human remains. The related disaster victim identification (DVI) operations are invariably challenging, with the state of the remains potentially precluding some identifications. Practitioners involved in these DVI operations will routinely face logistical, practical, and ethical challenges. This review provides information and guidance derived from first-hand experiences to individuals tasked with managing DVI operations with fragmented human remains. We outline several key issues that should be addressed during disaster preparedness planning and at the outset of an operation, when incident-specific strategies are developed. Specific challenges during recovery and examination of fragmented remains are addressed, highlighting the importance of experienced specialists at the scene and in the mortuary. DNA sample selection and sampling techniques are reviewed, as well as downstream effects of commingling and contamination, which can complicate reconciliation and emphasise the need for rigorous quality control. We also touch on issues that may arise during communication with families. While recommendations are provided, they are not intended as proscriptive policy but rather as an addition to the general recommendations given in the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) DVI Guide, to inform preparative discussions between government officials, judiciary, police, and forensic specialists.Key pointsA DVI operation for an incident characterised by many fragmented and otherwise compromised human remains poses specific challenges that may prolong and complicate identifications.Specialists should be consulted at the outset to address key issues related to the aim and extent of the operation.Specialist expertise in handling compromised human remains is indispensable at the scene, in the mortuary, during reconciliation, and for quality control.Continuous consultation between representatives from government, the judiciary, law enforcement, the media, and various forensic specialists will prevent unnecessary delay and facilitate accurate and timely communication.

Indexed as

burntcommingledDNADVIforensic anthropologyForensic sciencesfragmented human remains

Identifiers

PMID33224550
PMCPMC7654639

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.