Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40100322›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025

Evaluation of successive DNA extractions from cotton and flocked swabs.

Ella Pickell, Charlotte Arsenault, Kara L Jaremko, Georgiana Gibson-Daw, Deborah S B S Silva

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Ella PickellChemistry Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Charlotte ArsenaultDepartment of Arts and Sciences, Western New England University, Springfield, MA, 01119, USA.
Kara L JaremkoChemistry Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA.
Georgiana Gibson-DawDepartment of Arts and Sciences, Western New England University, Springfield, MA, 01119, USA.
Deborah S B S SilvaChemistry Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11549, USA. Deborah.Silva@hofstra.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5286-0326

Funding

Dr. Bruce and Doris Lister Endowed Fellowship in Chemistry Research Dr. Bruce and Doris Lister Endowed Fellowship in Chemistry ResearchHCLAS Faculty Research and Development Grants HCLAS Faculty Research and Development Grants
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of swabs to collect biological samples is a current practice in forensic investigations. Once a sample is collected, the DNA is extracted and used for testing at the crime lab. DNA extraction can often be sub-optimal in yield, and identifying new approaches to obtain larger DNA quantities from casework samples is critical. The goal of this study was to investigate the success rate of obtaining sufficient DNA yields from previously extracted swabs. Reference and case-type samples were collected using different types of swabs and genomic DNA was extracted from samples multiple times using only the QIAamp

Indexed as

DNADNA FingerprintingSpecimen HandlingCotton FiberHumansMicrosatellite RepeatsPolymerase Chain ReactionDNACotton swabDNA extractionDNA profilingFlocked swabForensic DNA

Identifiers

PMID40100322

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.