Cited by 176Forensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesHistorical and Scientific Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Postmortem toxicology

Skopp, Gisela·2010·Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

Abstract

Results from toxicological analyses in death investigations are used to determine whether foreign substances were a cause of death, whether they contributed to death, or whether they caused impairment. Drug concentrations are likely to change during pre-terminal stages due to altered pharmacokinetics, to treatment during resuscitation or in the intensive care unit, to concomitant illness or to the presence of drug tolerance. The potential for postmortem changes must be considered in all but a few drugs. Formation of new entities as well as degradation of drugs may occur, especially in putrefied corpses; in addition, body fluids and tissues may be severely affected by autolysis and putrefaction. Specimens should be selected based on individual case history and on their availability. Analytical procedures should be performed in accordance with a proper quality assurance program for toxicological investigations. Problems are most likely to occur during the isolation and identification of a drug. Interpretation of analytical results is often limited by the inadequate information provided in a particular case.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12024-010-9150-4

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Madea R, Dettmeyer R, unter Mitarbeit von Mußhoff F. Basiswissen Rechtsmedizin. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. pp. 182–217.
  2. Tiess D. Asservierung, Exhumierung, Thanatochemie. In: Madea B, Brinkmann B (Hrsg). Handbuch gerichtliche Medizin, Bd. 2. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. pp. 70–88.
  3. Ludewig R. Akute Vergiftungen. Ratgeber zur Erkennung, Verlauf, Behandlung und Verhütung toxikologischer Notfälle. Stuttgart: 9. Aufl., Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 1999. pp. 31–37.
  4. Skopp G, v. Meyer, L. Empfehlungen der Gesellschaft für Toxikologische und Forensische Chemie (GTFCh) zur Asservierung von Obduktionsmaterial für forensisch-toxikologische Untersuchungen. Toxichem + Krimtech 2004;71:101–7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Skopp, G.
Affiliations
Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Skopp, Gisela
Venue
Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology
Published
2010-03-04
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
314-325
ISSN
  • 1547-769X (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-2891
OpenAlex
W4240389001
Cited by
176
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
11.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Historical and Scientific Studies
Keywords
postmortem toxicology, postmortem changes, drug degradation, putrefaction, autolysis, pharmacokinetics, drug tolerance, specimen selection, death investigation, drug identification
MeSH terms
Autopsy, Body Fluids, Cause of Death, Drug Therapy, Humans, Pharmacokinetics, Poisoning, Postmortem Changes, Specimen Handling, Reproducibility of Results, Substance Abuse Detection, Artifacts, Substance-Related Disorders, Forensic Toxicology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review