Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39006154›Full record

ReviewForensic sciences research2024

"Not everything that can be counted counts" in ethanol toxicological results: an antemortem and postmortem technical interpretation focusing on driving under the influence.

Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic sciences research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interpol review of forensic toxicology, 2023-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

1 author.

Ricardo Jorge Dinis-OliveiraAssociate Laboratory i4HB - Institute for Health and Bioeconomy, University Institute of Health Sciences - CESPU, Gandra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7430-6297

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethanol blood analysis is the most common request in forensic toxicology, and some studies point to positive results in approximately one-third of all unnatural deaths. However, distinguishing sober deaths from drunk deaths is not as simple as it may seem. This technical, clinical, and forensic interpretation is proposed to interpret the ethanol toxicological results, discussing several artefacts and pitfalls that must be considered, namely focusing on driving under the influence. This work is presented with a practical and objective approach, aiming to alleviate the complexities associated with clinical, physiological, pathophysiological, and toxicological aspects to enhance comprehension, practicality, and applicability of its content, especially to courts. Particularly the physical integrity of the body, the postmortem interval, putrefactive signs, anatomic place of blood collection, alternative samples such as vitreous humour and urine, the possibility of postmortem redistribution, the inclusion of preservatives in containers, and optimal temperature conditions of shipment are among some of the aspects to pay attention. Although several biomarkers related to postmortem microbial ethanol production have been proposed, their translation into forensic routine is slow to be implemented due to the uncertainties of their application and analytical difficulties. Specifically, in the interpretation of ethanol toxicological results, "not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted" (attributed to Albert Einstein).

Indexed as

alcoholbiomarkersbloodendogenousethanolinterpretationpostmortem diffusionputrefactionurinevitreous humour

Identifiers

PMID39006154
PMCPMC11240237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.