SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2025
Are pre-analytical factors fully considered in forensic FFPE molecular analyses? A systematic review reveals the need for standardised procedures.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- STR typing from punched FFPE tissues: resolving suspected contamination and fetal-maternal mixture in two cases.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- How to combine the exigencies of histopathological and forensic-genetic investigation: a preliminary study on the use of medicolegal FFPE samples for DNA analysis.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Endogenous and Exogenous Small RNA Signatures as Novel Tools for Postmortem Interval Determination.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Systematic evaluation of long- and short-read RNA-seq for human peripheral blood.NAR molecular medicine · 2026Article
- RedefiningFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The need for molecular analyses has become increasingly common in the forensic sciences, particularly in forensic pathology, to better shape the causes of death. This approach is called the "molecular autopsy," where conventional medico-legal findings are often enhanced with specific molecular tests to provide reliable clinical and forensic diagnoses. In this context, FFPE (Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded) tissue samples collected during forensic autopsies are the only available specimens in retrospective studies for molecular DNA and/or RNA analyses. It is well known that pre-analytical parameters such as the agonal time, the PMI (Post-Mortem Interval), the fixation procedures, and the FFPE ageing and storage conditions can deeply impact the quality and quantity of the recovered nucleic acids, thus influencing the reliability of the downstream molecular tests. In the present study, we reviewed the recent forensic literature to establish whether these parameters are reported. Our survey showed that up to 34.9% and 40.5% of the 50 selected studies on DNA and RNA, respectively, reported the pre-analytical parameters mentioned above. Many publications did not report the length of agony (if any), which is an important parameter in RNA-based studies and estimations of the PMI; in addition, even relevant information on formalin tissue fixation procedures was often missing, thus impairing any critical evaluation of the PCR-based results. To address these issues, we propose the use of a simple form we set up to be filled out by Forensic Pathologists, where each pre-analytical step concerning the tissue samples collected during autopsy is accurately described and reported. In our opinion, this standardization will help the forensic community compare and evaluate the results of different molecular tests, thus increasing the reliability of the molecular results in forensics.
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.