ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2024
Impact of swabbing solutions on the recovery of biological material from non-porous 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A swab and wetting agent combination investigation for enhanced touch DNA recovery: A step towards standardisation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Technical assessment of two swab types for human and microbial DNA extraction from latent fingerprints.Forensic sciences research · 2025Article
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
Cotton swabs are one of the most effective methods of retrieving biological evidence. The efficiency of swab-based DNA recovery is impacted by many factors, such as the swabbing technique, source of DNA and volume and type of wetting solution used to moisten the swab head. This study aimed to evaluate a series of different swab-moistening solutions. The types of swabbing solutions included buffers, detergent-based solutions, and chelating agents. The DNA deposits, including cell-free DNA, cellular DNA, blood, and saliva, were collected from three non-porous surfaces: plastic, glass, and metal. The difference in the performance of the swab-wetting solutions was heavily influenced by the type of biological fluid, with the chelating agents, EGTA and EDTA, being the most suitable for recovering DNA from saliva and blood samples. Conversely, water and detergent-based solutions were more appropriate for cell-free and cellular DNA material likely to be found in trace DNA deposits.
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.