Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39775033›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2025

"Shedding the status"-a meta-analysis on the individual propensity to shed skin material in the context of forensic trace analysis.

D Koch, A Gosch, C Courts

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 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. Article
  2. Article
  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

3 authors.

D KochInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Melatengürtel 60-62, 50823, Cologne, Germany.
A GoschInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Melatengürtel 60-62, 50823, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3315-7587
C CourtsInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Melatengürtel 60-62, 50823, Cologne, Germany. Cornelius.courts@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9811-8482

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The so-called "shedder status", which can more precisely be referred to as "individual shedding propensity" (ISP), has been the subject of forensic genetic research for more than two decades. Numerous studies have been published on this topic many of which report contradictory and/or insufficiently documented results regarding the existence, influencing factors, classifications of and test methodologies for the ISP of skin material. To date, there is no scientific consensus on the best way to register and conceptualize this variable, that is essential for the assessment of DNA transfer events. Here, we present the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis to give an account of the current state of research on the ISP (including data up to end of December 2023). To this end, 50 publications on the topic of "shedder status" were systematically surveyed and the combined data was statistically analysed regarding the comprehensibility and test methodology for determining the ISP as well as key influencing factors (including sex and age) and classifications. Despite difficulties in the analysis due to missing or incomplete information in individual publications, the following insights and recommendations are established, also considering current dermatological and histological research: the tendency to shed (mostly) skin material upon physical contact with surfaces is a genuine and meaningfully ascertainable, person-specific i.e. individual variable, which is apparently influenced by male sex and young age. In contrast, time since handwashing and the choice of hand do not appear to have any relevant influence. When testing an individual's tendency to deposit DNA containing material, it is preferable to set a standardised contact time and use plastic tubes as the contact surface or perform direct skin abrasion. The body region from which the sample is taken also appears to be relevant. Overall, however, the results confirm the difficulty to compare and interpret the results from many available studies, and we advocate to harmonise and standardise study designs and experiments and to apply a quality control before publishing such data.

Indexed as

SkinDNA FingerprintingForensic GeneticsHumansDNA transferShedder statusSkin contact traceTouch DNA

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.