2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.189
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of colorimetric and immunochromatographic presumptive methods for forensic semen detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 1 shows the spermine picrate crystals seen in a reference sample of seminal fluid. There have been a number of studies which have been carried out for the detection of seminal fluid using presumptive tests under various conditions that could be encountered at the crime scene as well as in the laboratories [15][16][17].…”
Section: 1 Visual Examination Of Semen Stainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 1 shows the spermine picrate crystals seen in a reference sample of seminal fluid. There have been a number of studies which have been carried out for the detection of seminal fluid using presumptive tests under various conditions that could be encountered at the crime scene as well as in the laboratories [15][16][17].…”
Section: 1 Visual Examination Of Semen Stainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although FBB has been handled safely over time, there is a need to highlight sensitive, reliable, e cient and readily available methods for screening the presence of semen in any material collected as evidence in a sexual assault crime to address this gap. This is particularly important since evidence has shown that in order to get a good con rmatory DNA result, it is critical for the seminal uids to be collected within a speci c timeframe, preferably within the rst 24-48h (Gonçalves et al 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%