ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024
How to prove neglect in the context of the post-mortem examination.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [External ophthalmomyiasis in a 100-year-old female patient with periocular malignancy].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Veterinary Forensic Pathology in the Investigation of Animal Cruelty: Post-Mortem Insights, Forensic Tools, Case Studies, and Legal Perspectives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Initial blow fly development and larval mass formation in a funeral home cooler: analysis of insect evidence in the suspected desecration of a cadaver.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the causes, extent, and period of neglect is not only a medical but also a forensic task when it comes to legal investigations. In this study, we evaluated 46 autopsied cases where there was clear evidence of physical neglect during the last period of the deceased's life. The age of the deceased ranged from 21 to 96 years; most of them were female (71.7%). The majority of cases (89.9%) took place in a domestic environment, with partners or relatives providing care. The most frequent post-mortem findings were pressure sores, followed by inflammatory skin changes, and signs of malnutrition and dehydration. Neglect was the cause or co-cause of death in 23% of the cases. More than half of the deceased showed severe contamination of the skin surface by excrement, and in almost 40% of the cases, fly infestation was found. The majority of insects belonged to the group of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae), mainly the common house fly, Musca domestica. By analyzing the entomological evidence, it was possible to prove an insect infestation period of at least several days ante-mortem. Since the period of neglect may be relevant in terms of legal proceedings, the present work demonstrates the particular importance of insect traces in providing this evidence. While prosecution and conviction of caregivers remain challenging, it is all the more essential that entomology and legal medicine collaborate on the analysis of findings of neglect.
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.