ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025
Simple and nondestructive method to access and process material on coverslipped slides.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 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.
- Decoverslipping of Archival Cytology Aspirate Smears for Ancillary Studies: A Review of Methods and Institutional Experience With Freezer-Based Techniques.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026Review
- Article
- Simple and nondestructive method to access and process material on coverslipped slides.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The highly limiting nature of forensic evidence can, many times, force investigators and scientists to access nonoptimal sources of evidence such as slides from sexual assault evidence collection kits or archival slides from autopsies or hospital visits. These slides may contain hair, cells, fibers, or other physical evidence that are trapped in coverslipping media and are difficult to access. Methods to remove coverslips and access this material have been historically undertaken; however, most involve the use of dangerous processes or solvents (e.g., xylene and liquid nitrogen) and may also compromise the sample. We have revisited this and developed a new, simple, nondestructive, and safe method that can be used in concert with the new, more sensitive technology that may be able to improve downstream analysis of slide-bound material. The removal method uses a humid environment to gradually separate the mounting media from the coverslip. The coverslip is then coated in a thin layer of clear nail polish, allowing the coverslip to be removed without cracking, providing access to the sample. The method was able to successfully remove 100% of the coverslips mounted using a variety of mounting media from slides of varying ages (6+ years).
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.