ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2020
The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology.
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. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- From bias awareness to governance control: Regulating human factors across the forensic science evidence lifecycle.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Trends in toxicological findings and drug seizures of MDMA in New Zealand from 2010 to 2022.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Analysis of postmortem dermal extracts is an efficient illicit drug screening method supporting forensic medicine.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing vicarious trauma and attitudes toward mental health services for forensic sciences professionals.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Small samples, big problems-the inability to provide a sample in breath alcohol testing: Case reports.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Human factors in triaging forensic items: Casework pressures and ambiguity aversion.Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society · 2025Article
- A model of evaluative opinion to encourage greater transparency and justification of interpretation in postmortem forensic toxicology.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2023Article
- Interpol review of toxicology 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Operation makalu air crash: influence of cognitive and human factors on decision-making.Forensic sciences research · 2022Article
- Objectivity is a myth that harms the practice and diversity of forensic science.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of cognitive bias on decisions in forensic science has been demonstrated in numerous disciplines such as DNA and fingerprints, but has not been empirically investigated in the more objective domains, such as forensic toxicology. In the first experiment, participants (n = 58) were affected by irrelevant case information when analysing data from an immunoassay test for opiate-type drugs. In the second experiment, participants (n = 53) were biased in their choice of tests, for example, the age of the deceased impacted testing strategy: for older people, medicinal drugs were commonly chosen, whereas for younger people drugs of abuse were selected. Based on the results that examiners analyzing case data may have biases if they are given access to case context, we propose that examiners analysing presumptive test data are blind to irrelevant contextual information. Furthermore, that forensic toxicology laboratories use a consistent protocol for selecting tests, and that any deviations are documented and justified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.