ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Electrocution Stigmas in Organ Damage: The Pathological Marks.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Clue on the Skin: A Systematic Review on Immunohistochemical Analyses of the Ligature Mark.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Illegal electric fencing acting as a death trap in a suspected homicide.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Atypical chest contact in a domestic electrocution - an autopsy case report.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Identification of MFN2 and NCL as cardiac biomarkers for post-mortem diagnosis of atypical electrocution death.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Infrequent case of leucoencephalopathy after electric shock trauma.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Electrocutions in Free-Ranging Platyrrhine Nonhuman Primates: Diagnostic Features for a Threatening Condition.American journal of primatology · 2025Article
- An instance of homicide by electrocution with hand-made electrode plates.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2023Article
- Advances in forensic diagnosis of electric shock death in the absence of typical electrical marks.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic criteria for electrocution related death are still a challenge in forensic pathology and it seems that the electrical mark is the only reliable evidence.
methodsA comparison of histological and morphological findings of skin and internal organs from an autopsy series of electrocution deaths with those mostly reported in literature as representative for electrocution.
resultsThe morphological changes of heart, brain and other main internal organs are still unspecific. Organ's damage observed in electrocution deaths shows a wide variability, not reliable for a certain diagnosis of electrocution. The electrical mark is still the golden standard for diagnosis of electrocution.
conclusionsIn electrocution related deaths, pathological findings of the main internal organs are not enough evidence to support with certainty a post-mortem diagnosis that a victim suffered an electrical damage. Although the organ histological changes are undoubtedly the starting point for a better understanding of the fatal even, the diagnosis of death from electrical damage is still a dark and unsolved chapter. The electrical mark still represents a fundamental indicator above all in the medical-legal field, but the identification of pathognomonic elements and signs not limited to the skin alone could be a valid help in the future, especially in unclear cases.
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.