Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35526185›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2022

Forensic entomology in research and practice: an overview of forensic experts' perceptions and scientific output in Brazil.

Stephanie Evelyn França Guimarães, Gabriela Streppel Steindorff, Carla de Lima Bicho, Rodrigo Cesar Azevedo Pereira Farias, Simão Dias Vasconcelos

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of legal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie Evelyn França GuimarãesInsects of Forensic Importance Research Group, Department of Zoology, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7076-0644
Gabriela Streppel SteindorffInsects of Forensic Importance Research Group, Department of Zoology, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7528-6088
Carla de Lima BichoInsect Systematics and Bioecology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6801-8395
Rodrigo Cesar Azevedo Pereira FariasCriminalistics Center, Forensic Entomology Sector, Scientific Police Institute, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4071-625X
Simão Dias VasconcelosInsects of Forensic Importance Research Group, Department of Zoology, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil. simao.vasconcelosfo@ufpe.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8722-0836
Universidade Estadual da Paraíba · BRUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the growing demands for standardization of procedures for collection, preservation, and identification of insect specimens, this study aimed to identify how forensic entomology is used in Brazil and the perceptions of professionals involved in this process. We conducted: (1) bibliometric survey of the scientific production of forensic specialists from 2001 to 2020; (2) questionnaire applied to forensic professionals to verify their perceptions about the use of entomological evidence in practice. An increase in publications on Forensic Entomology was noticed in the last 5 years, mainly in the South and Northeast regions. Of the 82 respondents to the questionnaire, 62.8% deal with cadavers at least once a week, but 89.0% of the professionals who examine cadavers weekly find less than 10.0% colonized by insect larvae. Using entomological evidence to estimate PMI was mentioned by only 36.6% of the professionals. Most respondents stated no procedures related to collecting, handling, or identifying necrophagous insects in their daily practice. Regarding the chain of custody, 64.6% said they were aware of the changes in the regulations involving the collection and maintenance of forensic evidence. We emphasize the importance of collaboration between scientists at universities and crime scene examiners. Although the use of entomological evidence in criminal investigations in Brazil is still scarce, a growing interest in this area can be detected among forensic experts.

Indexed as

Forensic EntomologyAnimalsBrazilCadaverForensic SciencesHumansInsectaPostmortem ChangesChain of custodyEntomological evidenceForensic scienceLegal medicinePost-mortem interval

Identifiers

PMID35526185
OpenAlexW4229335372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.