ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2022
Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2022. 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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic firearm examination, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- From bias awareness to governance control: Regulating human factors across the forensic science evidence lifecycle.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- The Hawthorne effect in studies of firearm and toolmark examiners.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- An overview of log likelihood ratio cost in forensic science - Where is it used and what values can we expect?Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
- The secret life of crime labs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- The scientific reinvention of forensic science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Corrigendum.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
- Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
- Inconclusives, errors, and error rates in forensic firearms analysis:Three statistical perspectives.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2022
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open proficiency tests meet accreditation requirements and measure examiner competence but may not represent actual casework. In December 2015, the Houston Forensic Science Center began a blind quality control program in firearms examination. Mock cases are created to mimic routine casework so that examiners are unaware they are being tested. Once the blind case is assigned to an examiner, the evidence undergoes microscopic examination and comparison to determine whether the fired evidence submitted was fired in the same firearm. Fifty-one firearms blind cases resulting in 570 analysis and comparison determinations were reported between December 2015 and June 2021. No unsatisfactory results were obtained; however, 40.3% of comparisons in which the ground truth was either elimination or identification resulted in inconclusive conclusions. Due to the quality of some of the evidence submitted, inconclusive results were not unexpected. A ground truth of elimination and comparison result of inconclusive was observed at a rate of 74%, while a ground truth of identification and comparison result of inconclusive was observed at a rate of 31%. Bullets (61.8%) were the main contributors to inconclusive conclusions; variables such as the assigned examiners, training program, examiner experience, and the intended complexity of the case did not significantly contribute to the results. The program demonstrates that the quality management system and firearms section procedures can obtain accurate and reliable results and provides examiners added confidence in court. Additionally, the program can be tailored to target specific research questions and provide opportunities for collaboration with other laboratories and researchers.
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.