Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37439948›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024

Forensic neuropathology in the past decade: a scoping literature review.

Petteri Oura, Antti Hakkarainen, Antti Sajantila

Abstract readScoping Review
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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Petteri OuraDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 21, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland. petteri.oura@helsinki.fi.
Antti HakkarainenDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 21, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland.
Antti SajantilaDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 21, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While there has been notable research activity in the field of clinical neuropathology over the recent years, forensic approaches have been less frequent. This scoping literature review explored original research on forensic neuropathology over the past decade (January 1, 2010, until February 12, 2022) using the MEDLINE database. The aims were to (1) analyze the volume of research on the topic, (2) describe meta-level attributes and sample characteristics, and (3) summarize key research themes and methods. Of 5053 initial hits, 2864 fell within the target timeframe, and 122 were included in the review. Only 3-17 articles were published per year globally. Most articles originated from the Europe (39.3%) and Asia (36.1%) and were published in forensic journals (57.4%). A median sample included 57 subjects aged between 16 and 80 years. The most common research theme was traumatic intracranial injury (24.6%), followed by anatomy (12.3%) and substance abuse (11.5%). Key methods included immunotechniques (31.1%) and macroscopic observation (21.3%). Although a number of novel findings were reported, most were of preliminary nature and will require further validation. In order to reach breakthroughs and validate novel tools for routine use, more research input is urged from researchers across the world. It would be necessary to ensure appropriate sample sizes and make use of control groups.

Indexed as

NeuropathologyBibliometricsForensic PathologyHumansForensicLiterature searchMedico-legalMeta-level attributeMethodologyNeuropathologyResearch themeSample characteristics

Identifiers

PMID37439948
PMCPMC11297074

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.