Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40261480›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025

Trends in forensic investigation of seminal fluid- a scoping review.

Megha Upadhyay, Pankaj Shrivastava, Kapil Verma, Bhawana Joshi

Abstract readScoping Review
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Megha UpadhyayDepartment of Forensic Science, Faculty of Applied and Basic Sciences, Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University, Gurugram, India.
Pankaj ShrivastavaBiology Division Unit, Bhopal Department of Home (Police), Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of MP, Gwalior, India.
Kapil VermaCrime Scene Management Division, Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi, India.
Bhawana JoshiDepartment of Forensic Science, Faculty of Applied and Basic Sciences, Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University, Gurugram, India. bhawana19joshi@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5263-0579

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In sexual assault cases, semen is the most significant evidence for investigation. It can be recovered from either the victim or the crime scene. Additionally, semen can also be retrieved along with other body fluids, which makes it even more difficult to detect. The detection methods for semen are very wide, ranging from conventional destructive techniques to modern nondestructive techniques. The conventional techniques are reliable but have great disadvantages in terms of specificity and evidence integrity. This review highlights recent investigative techniques that are currently trending in the detection of semen. It provides a comprehensive analysis of various methods, including a comparative evaluation of their effectiveness. Additionally, the review summarizes the use of DNA markers as a detection strategy.

Indexed as

Forensic MedicineSemenDNA FingerprintingGenetic MarkersHumansMaleSex OffensesGenetic MarkersForensic serologyFTIR spectroscopyPolilightRaman spectroscopySemen detection

Identifiers

PMID40261480

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.