ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2023
Adapting forensic case reporting to account for marginalization and vulnerability.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic science management, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Responding to the call: Population affinity estimation in a South African forensic context of identification - are we helping or harming?Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Documentation of biological sex and gender in missing person investigations.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- A transdisciplinary integrated approach to improve identification outcomes for decomposed decedents in medicolegal death investigations.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Navigating Liminality in Evolving Forensic Anthropology Professionalism.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Article
- Structural vulnerability approaches to forensic anthropology: Beyond evolutionary theory.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scholarship of forensic sciences has shown politicalization of human remains and potential biases in criminal investigations. Specifically, concerns have been raised regarding how forensic anthropology analysis and documentation may hinder identification processes or obfuscate other data. As part of this scholarship, some have suggested that forensic anthropologists expand their reporting to include broader public health and safety information as well as reconsider who should be included in reports of anthropological findings. In response to these burgeoning discussions, this piece provides examples of ways anthropologists may formulate reports that capture evidence of marginalization or structural vulnerability. Documentation of findings can occur in myriad formats, including, but not limited to, individual case reports, reports on population analyses from cases, collaborative end-of-year reporting conducted with other medicolegal professionals, and collaborative databasing. This piece provides various templates and suggestions for reporting this kind of data while encouraging further discussion on related merits and concerns.
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.