ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2022
Radiological detection of sharp force skeletal trauma: an evaluation of the sensitivity of Lodox in comparison to CT and X-ray.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case discussions of missed traumatic fractures on computed tomography scans.SA journal of radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Victims of violent crime often have evidence of sharp force trauma (SFT) which needs to be examined to accurately investigate these cases. The abilities of CTs, X-rays, and Lodox to detect skeletal SFT defects and the minimum number of impacts were assessed, as were their abilities to macroscopically interpret SFT with the aim of identifying the class of weapon used. Ten pigs were, post-mortem, stabbed using a kitchen knife on one side of the body and chopped using a panga on the other side. They were then scanned and macerated. The number of SFT defects, type of SFT, and minimum number of impacts identifiable osteologically were recorded, as well as when using each imaging modality. CTs were most sensitive for detecting stab and chop defects (56.7% and 78.3%, respectively) and the minimum number of impacts (82.8%), while X-rays were least sensitive (17.2% for stab wounds, 46.5% for chop marks, and 43.5% for impacts). Lodox detected 26.8% of stab defects, 59.3% of chop marks, and 58.4% of impacts. The type of SFT for more than 70.0% of identified defects was correctly classified using all methods, while only Lodox had moderate sensitivities for stab wounds (52.4%). When radiological assessments of skeletal SFT are required, CTs should be performed, but Lodox can be used as an alternative. However, dry bone analyses still produce the best results and should be performed whenever possible. Macroscopic interpretations of skeletal SFT to broadly determine the class of weapon used is possible radiologically.
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.