ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2021
The diversity of shedder tests and a novel factor that affects DNA transfer.
Review in International journal of legal medicine, 2021. 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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- "Shedding the status"-a meta-analysis on the individual propensity to shed skin material in the context of forensic trace analysis.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of face-derived DNA on touch DNA deposition on cell phone screens.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- How to best assess shedder status: a comparison of popular shedder tests.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Trace DNA Transfer in Co-Working Spaces: The Importance of Background DNA Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the first shedder test was formulated almost 20 years ago, a plethora of different test strategies has emerged. The amount of data generated so far is considerable. However, because of the limited reproducibility of its results, the reliability of the shedder concept is frequently questioned. This study provides a literature overview of applied shedder tests that capture the diversity of the concept. It is pointed out to what extent different classification criteria, workflows, and trace evaluation can impair the classification outcome. The robustness of shedder status was assessed by applying a promising approach established by Fonneløp et al. (Forensic Sci Int Genet 29:48-60, 21). Data provide similar results to those in recent studies but also ambiguous shedder classifications. The applied shedder test was adapted based on our own as well as the reviewed data. With novel classification parameters, promising results were achieved. This study reveals uncertainties and inconsistencies of the shedder concept. Recommendations for harmonization and transparency are proposed. Implementation of the recommendations may result in an increased impact on casework and transfer studies, including activity-level assessments. Furthermore, this study shows that moisturizers affect participants' shedder status as well as DNA transfer. The impact appears to remain relevant even 60 min post ointment application but depends greatly on the type of moisturizer applied.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33783604What 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.