ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Forensic maceration - A comparative analysis of literature and practical application.
Review 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. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In forensic practice, the removal of soft tissue is sometimes required to allow for a more accurate skeletal analysis. One of the preferred skeletal processing methods is maceration, the softening of tissue by soaking in water. Despite being widely mentioned in forensic literature, there is still a lack of comprehensive data on how and which maceration methods are applied in daily forensic practice, especially as maceration can be carried out by different forensic professionals and in diverse forensic settings. The aim of this study was to review the published literature on forensic use of maceration and conduct an international survey to compare the practices used with those described in the literature, with special attention on the effects on tool marks and material traces analyses on bone. The literature review, conducted on 27 articles that met the study's inclusion criteria, showed that maceration has been a topic of research and methodological development over the years. Warm water maceration and detergent-based methods were recognized as preferred for practical use, even though no maceration method is without limitations. Survey responses from 57 laboratories and institutes from 19 different countries indicated that while most used methods align with literature recommendations, some practices considered aggressive remain in use. Additionally, it was observed that there is a significant lack of standardization, and maceration is often not included in standard operating procedures (SOPs), which can affect the consistency, efficiency and reproducibility of the methods used, which is something that should be addressed in future.
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.