Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37491634›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2024

Bridging the gap between decomposition theory and forensic research on postmortem interval.

Blake M Dawson, Maiken Ueland, David O Carter, Donna Mclntyre, Philip S Barton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of legal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Blake M DawsonSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2350, Australia. bdawso22@une.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3953-8719
Maiken UelandCentre for Forensic Science, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9155-3502
David O CarterForensic Sciences Unit, School of Natural Sciences & Mathematics, Chaminade University of Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1885-5237
Donna MclntyreGraduate Research School, Federation University, Mount Helen, Ballarat, VIC, 3350, Australia.
Philip S BartonFuture Regions Research Centre, Federation University, Mount Helen, Ballarat, VIC, 3350, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8377-2211

Funding

Australian Research Council DE150100026Australian Research Council DE210100494
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knowledge of the decomposition of vertebrate animals has advanced considerably in recent years and revealed complex interactions among biological and environmental factors that affect rates of decay. Yet this complexity remains to be fully incorporated into research or models of the postmortem interval (PMI). We suggest there is both opportunity and a need to use recent advances in decomposition theory to guide forensic research and its applications to understanding the PMI. Here we synthesise knowledge of the biological and environmental factors driving variation in decomposition and the acknowledged limitations among current models of the PMI. To guide improvement in this area, we introduce a conceptual framework that highlights the multiple interdependencies affecting decay rates throughout the decomposition process. Our framework reinforces the need for a multidisciplinary approach to PMI research, and calls for an adaptive research cycle that aims to reduce uncertainty in PMI estimates via experimentation, modelling, and validation.

Indexed as

Postmortem ChangesResearch DesignAnimalsAutopsyForensic PathologyDecayEcologyEntomologyForensic scienceInvestigationMicrobiomeNecrobiomeTaphonomy

Identifiers

PMID37491634
PMCPMC10861637

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.