Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42174325›Full record

ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026

Animal models in gunshot injury studies: A scoping review of model selection and quality assessment in ballistic research.

Andressa da Silva Barboza, Larissa Moreira Wohlfeil, Mohammed Irfan, Andressa Goicochea Moreira, Juliana Silva Ribeiro de Andrade, Otacílio Luiz Chagas Júnior, Sinval Rodrigues-Junior, Rafael Guerra Lund

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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

8 authors.

Andressa da Silva BarbozaGraduate Program in Dentistry, Pelotas Dental School, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street Rm 503, 96015 560; Downtown, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9191-0672
Larissa Moreira WohlfeilPontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3391-8996
Mohammed IrfanGraduate Program in Dentistry, Pelotas Dental School, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street Rm 503, 96015 560; Downtown, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0683-106X
Andressa Goicochea MoreiraGraduate Program in Dentistry, Pelotas Dental School, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street Rm 503, 96015 560; Downtown, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6784-0571
Juliana Silva Ribeiro de AndradeDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6847-6262
Otacílio Luiz Chagas JúniorGraduate Program in Dentistry, Pelotas Dental School, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street Rm 503, 96015 560; Downtown, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0930-8568
Sinval Rodrigues-JuniorCommunity University of Chapecó Region, Chapecó, SC, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4475-1725
Rafael Guerra LundGraduate Program in Dentistry, Pelotas Dental School, Federal University of Pelotas, 457 Gonçalves Chaves Street Rm 503, 96015 560; Downtown, Pelotas, RS, Brazil. rafael.lund@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1006-3809

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review aimed to identify the experimental models used to simulate gunshot injuries, assess the quality of the available evidence, and discuss their implications for forensic practice. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across seven databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and the Virtual Health Library) up to January 2026. Eligibility criteria included studies employing animal models and tissue surrogates to investigate gunshot injuries, with no restrictions on publication date or language. Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, data charting methods involved extracting study characteristics, types of animal models or simulants utilized, experimental objectives, and methodological reporting quality, which were subsequently qualitatively synthesized. Of the 29 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 26 studies were included in the final analysis. The predominant models utilized were porcine and bovine tissues, which successfully reproduced key morphological features of gunshot wounds. However, recurrent methodological limitations and high heterogeneity were identified across the literature. Notably, only one of the included studies adhered to standardized reporting frameworks such as the ARRIVE guidelines. While animal models are highly valuable for understanding projectile-tissue interactions and wound morphology, the current methodological variability compromises the interpretation and reconstruction of forensic ballistic events. The development and consistent application of appropriate guidelines are essential to enhance the reliability, reproducibility, and forensic applicability of experimental ballistic studies. Key points.

Indexed as

Animal modelsBallisticsForensic sciencesGunshot injuriesIn vivo studiesScoping review

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.