ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Navigating the landscape of legal medicine: a 4-year analysis of forensic consultations in an Italian hospital.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conditional Acceptance and the Optimism-Knowledge Gap: A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare in Italy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Legal, ethical and moral dilemma of human cloning: the conflict between technological progress and human dignity.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study explores a comprehensive 4-year retrospective analysis of 511 forensic consultations conducted at "Policlinico" hospital in Bari, Italy. It highlights the expanding role of legal medicine within healthcare settings, an area that has traditionally been limited to expert testimony and forensic pathology. Over time, legal medicine in Italy has evolved to address a variety of clinical areas, including informed consent, disability assessment, personal injuries, and sexual violence. This research aims to examine these diverse applications and their impact on patient care. Methods: Data were systematically categorized and analyzed using a multivariate multinomial regression model. The study focused on key variables, such as patient demographics and timing of shifts, to identify significant determinants that influence the types of forensic consultations conducted. The dataset consisted of 511 consultations, covering a range of clinical and legal issues. Results: The analysis revealed that informed consent issues were the most prominent, with 58.7% of consultations addressing concerns related to patient autonomy and the capacity for consent, particularly in neuropsychiatric conditions. Personal injury consultations accounted for 24.3% of the total, and sexual assault cases made up 10%. These results underscore the intersection of medical practice and forensic evaluation, highlighting societal issues such as interpersonal violence and the importance of legal medicine in healthcare. Discussion: The findings highlight significant gaps in the literature regarding the broader applications of legal medicine, especially in terms of integrating advanced methodologies like artificial intelligence. Such technologies could enhance patient profiling and predictive care, ultimately improving patient safety, risk management, and the protection of patient rights. The study advocates for structured forensic consultation services to be incorporated into clinical practice, emphasizing the role of legal medicine in improving patient-centered care and promoting justice. These insights are crucial for healthcare professionals, administrators, and policymakers aiming to optimize healthcare systems.
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.