↓ Skip to main content

Methods for determining time of death

Overview of attention for article published in Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Methods for determining time of death
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12024-016-9776-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Burkhard Madea, Madea, Burkhard

Abstract

Medicolegal death time estimation must estimate the time since death reliably. Reliability can only be provided empirically by statistical analysis of errors in field studies. Determining the time since death requires the calculation of measurable data along a time-dependent curve back to the starting point. Various methods are used to estimate the time since death. The current gold standard for death time estimation is a previously established nomogram method based on the two-exponential model of body cooling. Great experimental and practical achievements have been realized using this nomogram method. To reduce the margin of error of the nomogram method, a compound method was developed based on electrical and mechanical excitability of skeletal muscle, pharmacological excitability of the iris, rigor mortis, and postmortem lividity. Further increasing the accuracy of death time estimation involves the development of conditional probability distributions for death time estimation based on the compound method. Although many studies have evaluated chemical methods of death time estimation, such methods play a marginal role in daily forensic practice. However, increased precision of death time estimation has recently been achieved by considering various influencing factors (i.e., preexisting diseases, duration of terminal episode, and ambient temperature). Putrefactive changes may be used for death time estimation in water-immersed bodies. Furthermore, recently developed technologies, such as H magnetic resonance spectroscopy, can be used to quantitatively study decompositional changes. This review addresses the gold standard method of death time estimation in forensic practice and promising technological and scientific developments in the field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 27%
Unspecified 11 17%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 38%
Unspecified 14 22%
Chemistry 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,481,501
of 8,394,942 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology
#132
of 266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,542
of 273,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine & Pathology
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,394,942 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.