Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35349174›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2022

Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program.

Maddisen Neuman, Callan Hundl, Aimee Grimaldi, Donna Eudaley, Darrell Stein, Peter Stout

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interpol review of forensic firearm examination, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The secret life of crime labs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  6. The scientific reinvention of forensic science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  7. Corrigendum.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maddisen NeumanHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Callan HundlHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Aimee GrimaldiHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Donna EudaleyHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Darrell SteinHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Peter StoutHouston Forensic Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FirearmsForensic SciencesLaboratoriesQuality Controlblind quality controlblind testingfirearms comparison conclusionsfirearms examinationinconclusive rateproficiency testingquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID35349174
PMCPMC9313831

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.