ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2025
Literature reviews: typology and forensic applications.
Review 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Forensic performance of dental age estimation methods at legal age thresholds in Latin America: a scoping review.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Secondary research models, such as literature reviews, are designed to summarize existing primary data. Literature reviews serve distinct purposes depending on their methodology and scope. In forensic science, they have been widely used to recover historical information, facilitate bibliometric investigations, compile and compare analytical techniques, promote best practices, and support decision-making. This study presented a comprehensive description of common literature review types, namely (1) narrative, (2) integrative, (3) scoping, (4) systematic (with or without meta-analysis), (5) bibliometric, and (6) umbrella reviews, highlighting their specific characteristics and applications in forensic science. Forensic experts, students, instructors, and research authors and readers must be familiar with the typology and appropriate use of literature reviews to effectively select the most suitable approach for their studies and professional practice. In this context, the goal of academic research, as pursued in the present work, is to strengthen forensic knowledge, enhance theoretical rigor, and ultimately improve practices in the field through education in scientific research methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40392352What 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.