ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026
Animal models in gunshot injury studies: A scoping review of model selection and quality assessment in ballistic research.
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.
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: "Animal models in gunshot injury studies: a scoping review of model selection and quality assessment in ballistic research".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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42174325What 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.