Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39174666›Full record

ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Between clinical and forensic imaging : Differences, similarities and legal framework].

Gina Maria Bruch, Benno Schäffer, Bastian O Sabel

Abstract readReviewComparative StudyEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Gina Maria BruchInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, LMU München, Nussbaumstr. 26, 80336, München, Deutschland. gina.bruch@med.lmu.de.
Benno SchäfferInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, LMU München, Nussbaumstr. 26, 80336, München, Deutschland.
Bastian O SabelKlinik und Poliklinik für Radiologie, LMU Kliniken, Marchioninistr. 15, 81337, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical imaging uses a variety of medical imaging techniques to diagnose and monitor diseases, injuries and other health conditions. These include X‑ray images, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. These procedures are used to make accurate diagnoses and plan the best possible treatment for patients. Forensic imaging, in contrast, is used in both living and deceased persons in the context of criminal investigations. Postmortem forensic imaging techniques, such as postmortem CT (PMCT) and postmortem CT angiography (PMCTA), include some of the same procedures used in clinical imaging. An important difference between clinical and forensic imaging is the purpose and context in which the imaging studies are used. In addition, radiological procedures, such as angiography, need to be adapted and modified in the post-mortem setting. From a legal perspective clinical and forensic imaging must strictly adhere to privacy and procedural guidelines. Forensic images often need to be admissible as evidence in court, which places specific requirements on the quality, authenticity and documentation of images. In the case of living individuals, there must be a valid indication and consent from the patient. Consent must also fundamentally be obtained for post-mortem examinations, e.g. from the public prosecutor's office.

Indexed as

Forensic MedicineAutopsyDiagnostic ImagingForensic ImagingForensic SciencesGermanyHumansInformed ConsentConsentData protectionMagnetic resonance imagingPMCTPost-mortem angiography

Identifiers

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.