ArticleForensic sciences research2025
Comparative analysis of DNA collection techniques applied to disposable 3-layer earloop face masks.
Article in Forensic sciences research, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since COVID-19 has emerged and become a global health issue, an awareness of wearing face masks has been attentive to prevent the spread of the disease. Face masks that have become a part of daily life, may be encountered at crime scenes and serve as a potential source of DNA for human identification. This study developed a rapid method for obtaining abundant DNA from 3-layer disposable face masks. Ten healthy volunteers were recruited to wear the masks for a period of 2 h. The optimal method for retrieving DNA was determined to be direct cutting of the middle section of the mask's inner layer. The average DNA concentrations from males and females were 0.127 0 ± 0.233 7 ng/μL and 0.069 9 ± 0.107 4 ng/μL, respectively, with no significant difference observed between the sexes (
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.