Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37747678›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024

Detection of sensitivity and vestigiality of presumptive tests for swabbed blood stains.

Kara L Jaremko, Abigail Pitts, Alexandra Hascall, Alison Briskie, Brenna Redmond, Deep Kaur, Grace Curtis, Hannah LaVena, John West, Peixuan Du and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Kara L JaremkoChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA. Kara.L.Jaremko@hofstra.edu.ORCID 0009-0005-6640-466X
Abigail PittsChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Alexandra HascallChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Alison BriskieChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Brenna RedmondChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Deep KaurChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Grace CurtisChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Hannah LaVenaChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
John WestChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Peixuan DuChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Sheena HernandezChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Deborah S B S SilvaChemistry Department, 106 Berliner Hall, 151 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is a common practice in forensic casework to use presumptive tests for blood stains before DNA extraction and testing. Stains are usually swabbed and then the swabs are sent for analysis. The Kastle-Meyer (KM) and Leucomalachite green (LMG) presumptive tests for blood are widely used, and their sensitivities have been thoroughly tested in the literature in solution and directly on stains, but not on swabbed stains to mimic casework. In this study, the sensitivity of the KM and LMG tests was tested on eight blood dilutions on cotton fabric and ceramic tile that were stained and subsequently swabbed. Both tests showed sensitivity up to 1:5000, which is slightly lower than reported values in solution or directly on stain but still highly effective in most cases. Stains were also cleaned with common agents, then swabbed and re-tested. Stained ceramic tiles cleaned with soap/water or bleach gave mixed positive and negative results for the 1:10 dilution, presumably due to variance in how thoroughly each investigator cleaned the stain, and other dilutions were undetectable after cleaning. The LMG test gave false positives for bleach cleaned stains, due to reagent reactivity with bleach. Surprisingly, blood was detectible up to the 1:100 dilution with both tests on stained cotton fabric that was cleaned in a washing machine with detergent and dried. Ultimately the KM and LMG presumptive tests remain effective tools for swabbed blood stains, and their practicality for cleaned stains is dependent on material containing the stain, cleaning agent and processing.

Indexed as

Blood StainsColoring AgentsRosaniline DyesBleaching AgentsCeramicsCotton FiberFalse Positive ReactionsForensic MedicineHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySoapsSpecimen HandlingBleaching AgentsColoring Agentsleucomalachite greenRosaniline DyesSoapsKastle-MeyerLeucomalachite greenPresumptive testsSwabs

Identifiers

PMID37747678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.