Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37067670›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024

Bone finds and their medicolegal examination: a study from Hesse, Germany.

T E N Ohlwärther, F Holz, K Edler, S C Kölzer, E Reuss, M A Verhoff, C G Birngruber

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T E N OhlwärtherInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Kennedyallee 104, Frankfurt am Main, 60596, Germany.
F HolzInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Kennedyallee 104, Frankfurt am Main, 60596, Germany.
K EdlerInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Gießen and Marburg, Justus-Liebig-University, Gießen, Germany.
S C KölzerInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Kennedyallee 104, Frankfurt am Main, 60596, Germany.
E ReussInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Kennedyallee 104, Frankfurt am Main, 60596, Germany.
M A VerhoffInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Kennedyallee 104, Frankfurt am Main, 60596, Germany.
C G BirngruberInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Kennedyallee 104, Frankfurt am Main, 60596, Germany. birngruber@med.uni-frankfurt.de.ORCID 0000-0003-1057-0624
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEJustus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bones found by chance can be of great criminal or historical interest. The nature of their appraisal depends on the individual case, the locally effective legislation and the available resources. To assess whether a find is relevant with respect to criminal investigation, the circumstances of the find and the results of the forensic examination carried out by trained personnel must be considered. The aim of this study was to obtain an overview of the circumstances and nature of the finds as well as the results of the subsequent expert opinions by evaluating bone finds from the federal state of Hesse, Germany. For this purpose, over a 10-year period from 2011 to 2020, all bone finds examined at the Institutes of Legal Medicine in Gießen and Frankfurt am Main, Germany, were evaluated retrospectively with regard to the locations and circumstances of the finds, their nature (human or non-human), the postmortem interval, possible traces of violent impact and the results of further examinations. Of the 288 bone finds evaluated, 38.2% were found in forests, meadows and parks. In 50.7%, the finds contained human bones, of which 37.0% had a forensically relevant postmortem interval of 50 years or less. Evidence of trauma was described in 77.4% of the human bone cases: postmortem damage in 78.8%, peri-mortem injury in 9.7% and ante-mortem injury in 11.5%. DNA examinations were performed in 40.4% of the human bone finds. They yielded STR profiles in 81.3%, leading to a definite identification in 35.4%. Among the non-human bones sent in, the most common were bones from pigs (23.4%), deer (18.1%), cattle (16.4%), roe deer (11.7%) and sheep (11.7%). The macroscopic examination is the first step of the forensic-osteological evaluation and sets the course for further examinations or investigations. DNA examinations are of great importance for the reliable identification of human bones. They were responsible for 70.8% of successful identifications.

Indexed as

Bone and BonesForensic AnthropologyAnimalsCattleDeerGermanyHumansPostmortem ChangesRetrospective StudiesSwineAnthropologyBony injuriesForensic osteologyIdentificationPostmortem interval

Identifiers

PMID37067670
PMCPMC11297073
OpenAlexW4366084043

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.