Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41390867›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026

Systematic analysis of homicidal poisonings in Germany.

Madeleine Ohm, Roland Seifert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Madeleine OhmInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany.
Roland SeifertInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Homicidal poisonings receive considerable media attention but have so far received too little attention in research. This study therefore aimed to analyze homicidal poisonings from Germany to gain a better understanding of this complex topic and to better investigate or even prevent future cases. Online archives of German magazines and newspapers were searched and 63 cases from 1948-2023 were collected and evaluated. 70% of the reported cases were fatal. Perpetrators were more often women and the victims more often men. While the perpetrators were usually middle-aged, the victims were usually very young or very old. Homicidal poisonings have complex causes. The largest group of perpetrators were people who killed their partners due to relationship problems. The second largest group was medical personnel who poisoned patients, which is why the substances most frequently used were medications. The motives were often stress and excessive demands, the desire to exert power, or even to gain sympathy. Oral application of compounds by food and drink was the most common mode of poisoning, gastrointestinal symptoms being the most common signs of poisoning. In earlier decades, poisoning with the irreversible acetylcholine esterase inhibitor E605 was common. Narcotics and metals play important in poisoning as well, but many compound classes are used, often accessible over-the-counter or online. Medical doctors and hospital staff play an important role in the diagnosis of poisoning. In conclusion, some typical patterns of homicidal poisoning emerged, facilitating future investigations and prevention.

Indexed as

HomicidePoisoningAdolescentAdultAgedChildFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultCrimeDrugsHomicidal poisoningHospital safety

Identifiers

PMID41390867
PMCPMC13053436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.