ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
Determining the utility of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology for disaster victim identification (DVI).
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2026. 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
Abstract
Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology was evaluated as a method for electronically tracking human remains and associated identifying information during mass fatality incidents. Conventional tags are prone to physical damage and failure, which can compromise identification processes and hinder the repatriation of bodies. Nine types of uniquely numbered RFID tags were deployed in decompositional and burial environments to assess the survivability of different types of RFID tags buried, inserted, and attached to pig carcasses. The best method of insertion or attachment to keep tags in situ, and whether physical writing in pencil or permanent marker remained on the tags' surfaces. In a series of four studies of whole carcasses, pieces of tissue, as human proxies, and burials in soil, all but two tags were determined to be viable throughout the decomposition process. All tags displayed movement issues, so bone attachment sites are recommended. Handwritten labels on the tags prepared under dry conditions and when protected from decompositional fluids held up better than writing interacting with the fluids. We found the most useful tags were the LF Yellow Ear Tag and the UHF White Tag.
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.