ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2024
Comparison of swabbing and cutting-out DNA collection methods from cotton, paper, and cardboard surfaces.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 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.
- The comparison of excision, swabbing, tape-lifting, and scraping as techniques for DNA evidence recovery: A preliminary study.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Comparing saliva collection and DNA extraction methods for saliva-based microbiome profiling.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Impact of swabbing solutions on the recovery of biological material from non-porous surfaces.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choosing an inappropriate method of sample collection can often have a detrimental impact on DNA recovery. Multiple studies highlight the importance of selecting the recovery method based on the type of surface the DNA sample is located on. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of sample collection via the single cotton swabbing method in comparison to recovery directly from the material cut from the surface. The three types of surfaces included cotton, paper, and cardboard. DNA sources comprised cell-free and cellular DNA, as well as blood and saliva as examples of body fluids commonly encountered at crime scenes. The data analysis revealed that the cutting-out method resulted in higher DNA recovery from all but cardboard surfaces, making it the more efficient collection method. Despite its limitations, the cutting-out method should be considered as the DNA recovery method of choice when suitable.
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.