ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026
The importance of medical imaging history for medicolegal evaluation.
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.
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.
- Comment on "The importance of medical imaging history for medicolegal evaluation".Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41501597What 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.