Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41501597›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026

The importance of medical imaging history for medicolegal evaluation.

Ufuk Akın, Gökmen Karabağ

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Ufuk AkınDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Balikesir, Türkiye. ufukakin@bandirma.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1525-0494
Gökmen KarabağDepartment of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8069-3462

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As with all traumatic pathologies, determining when a fracture occurred and during which event it occurred is necessary for an accurate medicolegal evaluation. Among the 4,224 cases for which forensic reports were prepared, the report outcome changed in 105 cases (2.5%) when prior medical imaging was included in the medicolegal evaluation. In the initial assessment of the cases (based on emergency department medical records and radiology reports), a bone fracture was recorded in 59.0% of the cases, no bone fracture in 10.5%, and a suspected bone fracture in 30.5%. In the final evaluation-conducted by the forensic medicine outpatient clinic-where current medical images were compared with prior medical images, it was determined that a bone fracture had occurred in the most recent trauma in 17.1% of the cases, that no new fracture attributable to the most recent trauma was present in 79.1%, and that new fractures in addition to old bone fractures were present in 3.8%. We believe that, when analysing current medical images, the search for prior medical imaging and the comparative analysis of obtained prior images with current images should be a routine component of medicolegal evaluation for all forensic cases, regardless of case type.

Indexed as

Forensic radiologyForensic reportMedical imagingMedical recordsMedicolegal evaluation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.