ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Five years of veterinary forensic necropsies in the Netherlands: a retrospective analysis of non-human cases.
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.
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
In this study a five-year retrospective analysis (2020-2024) of veterinary forensic necropsies in the Netherlands is presented, based on 346 necropsies out of 390 total submissions to Stichting Forensisch Dierenonderzoek (Forensic Animal Research Foundation), involving suspected non-natural deaths with potential forensic relevance. The objective was to characterize animal abuse cases by assessing species involvement, presumptive causes and manners of death based on gross findings, and regional, temporal, and procedural patterns. Forensic necropsies were performed according to standardized internal protocols, and data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The majority of examined animals were companion species, particularly dogs (41.8%) and cats (28.5%). Presumptively classified non-natural deaths accounted for 66.8% of cases, while natural deaths represented 9.5%, accidents 8.4%, and undetermined cases 15.3%. Among non-natural deaths, blunt force trauma (30.3%) and neglect or deprivation (26.4%) were the most frequent causes, based on gross necropsy findings. Seasonal variation in decomposition stage and regional disparities in submissions were observed. Submission and packaging practices improved modestly over time, yet forensic standards were not consistently met. Legal outcomes were retrieved for 80 cases: most resulted in minor penalties such as fines or community service, with only one case leading to imprisonment exceeding six months. These findings underscore the dominance of violent and neglect-related deaths in Dutch veterinary forensic caseloads and emphasize the need for standardized protocols, interdisciplinary collaboration, and institutional support for veterinary forensic science in the Netherlands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.