Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39264426›Full record

ReviewRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Forensic-radiological diagnosis of gunshot wounds].

Dietrich Stoevesandt, Lina Woydt, Lisa-Maria Peter, Marko Weber

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
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. 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

4 authors.

Dietrich StoevesandtDorothea Erxleben Lernzentrum, Medizinische Fakultät, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Straße 12, 06112, Halle (Saale), Deutschland. dietrich.stoevesandt@medizin.uni-halle.de.
Lina WoydtInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, Medizinische Fakultät, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Deutschland.
Lisa-Maria PeterInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, Medizinische Fakultät, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Deutschland.
Marko WeberInstitut für Rechtsmedizin, Medizinische Fakultät, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough gunshot wounds are less common in Germany than in other countries, a proportion of suicides and violent crimes are committed with firearms, which is why basic knowledge of diagnosis is important.

objectiveFundamentals regarding forensic assessment of gunshot wounds are discussed alongside typical radiological findings. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn addition to analyzing our own cases and evaluating official statistics, this article is based on a discussion of basic research and expert recommendations.

resultsThe article describes the characteristics of the bullet entry and exit as well as special features of the bullet trajectory, particularly in bony injuries, and discusses their significance for radiological findings. Pitfalls in interpretation, such as changes in body position and the deflection of projectile (fragments) in the body, are presented, as are the advantages of supplementary radiological diagnostics (projectile search before initiation of dissection, simple detection of an air embolism, clarity of bullet trajectory reconstruction).

conclusionThis article is intended to provide an overview of not only typical types of weapons and projectiles but also their effects on the body of the victim, which must be documented by the examiner.

Indexed as

Forensic BallisticsWounds, GunshotGermanyHumansRadiographyBullet trajectory, channelGunshot channel reconstructionPost-mortem computed tomographyProjectilesViolence

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.