ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2025
How to best assess shedder status: a comparison of popular shedder tests.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2025. 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
- Impact of face-derived DNA on touch DNA deposition on cell phone screens.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"Shedder status" describes the inherent variation between individuals to leave touch DNA on a surface through direct contact. Depending on the amount and quality of DNA or cellular deposition, individuals are typically deemed high, intermediate, or low shedders. Although many shedder tests have been described, variability in study design and categorisation criteria has limited the ability of researchers to accurately compare results, as well as accrue the necessary population data. As activity level reporting becomes more common, the need for reliable and standardised testing increases. To assess reproducibility, this study compared shedder status data generated by six participants using three different shedder tests, as modified from the literature. This involved DNA quantification and profiling of a handprint made on a glass plate, DNA quantification and profiling of a grip mark made on a plastic conical tube, and cell scoring of a Diamond™ Dye-stained fingermark. All participants washed and dried their hands fifteen minutes before each deposit. To assess the impact of behaviour on shedder designation, participants either refrained from activity or went about their daily tasks during this wait. The shedder status of participants changed between tests, as DNA-based testing often generated lower shedder statuses than cell scores. Further, when different categorisation methods were applied to a single test, intra-person variability increased as the number of shedder designations increased from two (low/high) to five (low/low-intermediate/intermediate/intermediate-high/high). Moving forward, the utilisation of a single shedder test and standardised categorisation criteria is needed to employ shedder testing in forensic casework.
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.