ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Forensic medical reporting of non-fatal injuries in criminal cases in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods analysis of regional practices.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-fatal physical injuries are common in criminal cases, and their accurate documentation and interpretation are crucial for legal proceedings. In the Netherlands, forensic doctors provide independent injury reports that range from basic injury descriptions to translations of medical information into lay terms and comprehensive expert analysis. However, prior research indicates that these reports are often absent in court cases, despite their recognized importance-particularly in serious crimes and domestic violence cases. The reasons for this limited availability remain largely unclear. This study examined the extent and consistency of forensic medical reporting of non-fatal injuries in adults in the Netherlands, identified regional disparities in forensic medical practices, and explored barriers affecting report availability in criminal cases. A mixed-method approach was used, combining a national survey of forensic medical departments with an analysis of injury reports from 2018 to 2022. Findings reveal substantial regional differences in investigation methods, reporting standards, and the number of reports produced. Variations were linked to the lack of requesting protocols, unclear case definitions for forensic doctor involvement, and capacity constraints. The roles of treating physicians, police, and victims in documenting injuries were also not clearly defined. To ensure equitable access to forensic medical expertise within the criminal justice system, this study recommends national standardization, clearer case prioritization for forensic medical involvement, enhanced collaboration, and enhanced forensic training for treating physicians.
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.