Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42417845›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026

Best practice for forensic anthropology reporting: a statement by the Board of the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe (FASE).

Eugénia Cunha, Anja Petaros, Desiré Brits, Cristina Cattaneo, Elena Kranioti, Ann H Ross, Pascal Adalian, Zuzana Obertova, Hans H de Boer

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Eugénia Cunha *National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2998-371X
Anja Petaros *Division of Forensic Medicine Linköping, Department of Forensic Medicine, Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine, Linköping, Sweden. anja.petaros@rmv.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7003-6488
Desiré BritsHuman Variation and Identification Research Unit (HVIRU), Department of Anatomical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3442-5659
Cristina CattaneoLABANOF, Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology and Odontology, Section of Forensic Medicine, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8273-0143
Elena KraniotiForensic Medicine Unit, Department of Forensic Sciences, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1627-5899
Ann H RossDepartment of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8780-1414
Pascal AdalianAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADES, Marseille, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5101-9508
Zuzana ObertovaCentre for Forensic Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5847-2567
Hans H de BoerVictorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Southbank, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8590-0945

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The case report is the primary means by which forensic anthropologists communicate the outcomes of their examination. Despite their central role, considerable variability currently exists in the content, structure, and clarity of such reports. Drawing on published guidelines, forensic science standards, and the collective experience of an international group of practitioners from the Board of the Forensic Anthropology Society of Europe (FASE), this paper presents practical recommendations for forensic anthropology reporting. It outlines the fundamental aims and principles of reporting, identifies essential report elements, and distinguishes minimum requirements from discretionary components. Emphasis is placed on scientific integrity, transparency of methods and reasoning, and clear communication to a diverse audience. These recommendations are meant to be applicable across jurisdictions and professional contexts, including independent practice, while remaining aligned with contemporary forensic science standards. By promoting consistency and clarity in reporting, these recommendations aim to support the reliability, interpretability, and admissibility of forensic anthropological evidence, and to strengthen the contribution of forensic anthropology to medico-legal investigations.

Indexed as

Forensic AnthropologyEuropeHumansConsensusForensic anthropologyForensic practiceGuidelinesReport writing

Identifiers

PMID42417845
PMCPMC13658347

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.