ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024
Management of unidentified and unclaimed bodies: a comparison of model from four countries in the Asia Pacific Region.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disposal of unclaimed remains in Chinese medical institutions: power-responsibility conflicts, standardization deficits, and legal regulation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Understanding deep disadvantage at the end of life: A nationwide analysis of unclaimed deaths.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2025Article
- Dental Identification System in Public Health: Innovations and Ethical Challenges: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Commentary on: Management of unidentified and unclaimed bodies: a comparison of model from four countries in the Asia Pacific Region.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Managing mass fatality incidents or disasters involving multiple deaths are not uncommon among forensic practitioners. In fact, management of unidentified or unknown bodies is also a vital component of the day-to-day mortuary work practice. The unidentified and subsequently unclaimed bodies have always been a "silent mass disaster," a problem that needs to be tackled within the forensic community and raises the global issue of ethics, law, and human rights. Unidentified bodies' in Malaysia make up an average of 4.02% of all death cases where a total postmortem examination was performed which is comparable with other developing countries within 4-10% which can go up to 25%. Moreover, unstandardized procedures in all mortuaries in different states and districts in Malaysia have worsened the scenario even with guidelines in place. This study aims to address the issues surrounding unidentified and unclaimed bodies including body disposal from a social and legal perspective using case study methodology by comparing four different countries in the Asia Pacific Region through document analysis and interview methods. One of the major findings is evident in 3 out of the 4 models, whereby there is a considerable gap in consolidating the missing person report and information to match with the unidentified bodies received in forensic institutions in an attempt to enhance the identification process which ultimately intends as a closure for the family members. It is also timely to think out of the box beyond dental records and DNA profiling to improve the identification rate for skeletonized remains through means of anthropology biometrics comparison. With the limited literature published surrounding this domain, it is hoped that the suggestions and recommendations to standardize the management of unidentified and unclaimed bodies can benefit many forensic institutions and public mortuaries in this region.
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.