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.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- DNA recovery and STR profiling from heated tobacco sticks for forensic personal identification.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Forensic trace DNA analysis to answer activity-level questions in a realistic-scenario activity study based upon the case of Idaho v Bryan C. Kohberger.Forensic science international. Synergy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
39775033What 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.