ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Medico-legal aspects of fatal ricin poisoning: a systematic review of clinical manifestations, toxicological findings and autopsy results.
Review 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ricin, a potent protein toxin derived from Ricinus communis, is considered one of the most significant threats in cases of bioterrorism, homicide, suicide, and accidental acute poisoning. However, its clinical and pathological features in fatal cases have not been systematically summarized. This systematic review aimed to summarize the current evidence regarding the clinical manifestations, toxicological biomarkers, autopsy findings, and medico-legal aspects of fatal ricin poisoning. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Original studies, case reports, and case series reporting detailed clinical, toxicological, or autopsy data following fatal or near-fatal human exposure to ricin were included in the review. The available evidence suggests a relatively consistent clinical course, characterized by rapid progression from mild, nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms to hypovolemic shock, multi-organ failure, and refractory cardiovascular collapse. Ricinine was consistently detected in blood, urine, and postmortem tissues, supporting its role as a reliable biomarker of ricin exposure, although current evidence is insufficient to establish definitive correlations with poisoning severity or toxicokinetics. Reported autopsy findings commonly included hemolysis, hemorrhagic necrosis of the gastrointestinal tract, hepatic injury, renal tubular necrosis, and evidence supporting the presence of a capillary leak syndrome. Several specific medico-legal challenges emerged from the reviewed literature, including the need for the development of novel analytical methods with improved detection limits and quantification capabilities for ricinine, the interpretation of postmortem redistribution phenomena, the distinction between lethal and non-lethal exposures, and the differential diagnosis with other septic shock-like syndromes. Overall, the available evidence suggests a relatively consistent clinicopathological pattern associated with fatal ricin poisoning that can be corroborated through ricinine detection, while emphasizing the importance of early toxicological investigations, particularly when no history of exposure is available. These findings provide a concise and integrated body of evidence to support clinical management, inform forensic investigations, and enhance public health preparedness, while highlighting the need for standardized postmortem sampling protocols and further research into the toxicodynamics of ricin in humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42560523What 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.