Fingermarks and Other Impressions Left by the Human Body - A Review (August 2007-July 2010)

The purpose of this paper is to review the scientific literature from August 2007 to July 2010. The review is focused on more than 420 published papers. The review will not cover information coming from international meetings available only in abstract form. Fingermarks constitute an important chapter with coverage of the identification process as well as detection techniques on various surfaces. We note that the research has been very dense both at exploring and understanding current detection methods as well as bringing groundbreaking techniques to increase the number of marks detected from various objects. The recent report from the US National Research Council (NRC) is a milestone that has promoted a critical discussion on the state of forensic science and its associated research. We can expect a surge of interest in research in relation to cognitive aspect of mark and print comparison, establishment of relevant forensic error rates and statistical modelling of the selectivity of marks' attributes. Other biometric means of forensic identification such as footmarks or earmarks are also covered in the report. Compared to previous years, we noted a decrease in the number of submission in these areas. No doubt that the NRC report has set the seed for further investigation of these fields as well.

Diagnostic yield of short-term video-EEG monitoring for epilepsy and PNESs: a European assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Although long-term video-EEG monitoring (LVEM) is routinely used to investigate paroxysmal events, short-term video-EEG monitoring (SVEM) lasting <24 h is increasingly recognized as a cost-effective tool. Since, however, relatively few studies addressed the yield of SVEM among different diagnostic groups, we undertook the present study to investigate this aspect. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 226 consecutive SVEM recordings over 6 years. All patients were referred because routine EEGs were inconclusive. Patients were classified into 3 suspected diagnostic groups: (1) group with epileptic seizures, (2) group with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNESs), and (3) group with other or undetermined diagnoses. We assessed recording lengths, interictal epileptiform discharges, epileptic seizures, PNESs, and the definitive diagnoses obtained after SVEM. RESULTS: The mean age was 34 (±18.7) years, and the median recording length was 18.6 h. Among the 226 patients, 127 referred for suspected epilepsy - 73 had a diagnosis of epilepsy, none had a diagnosis of PNESs, and 54 had other or undetermined diagnoses post-SVEM. Of the 24 patients with pre-SVEM suspected PNESs, 1 had epilepsy, 12 had PNESs, and 11 had other or undetermined diagnoses. Of the 75 patients with other diagnoses pre-SVEM, 17 had epilepsy, 11 had PNESs, and 47 had other or undetermined diagnoses. After SVEM, 15 patients had definite diagnoses other than epilepsy or PNESs, while in 96 patients, diagnosis remained unclear. Overall, a definitive diagnosis could be reached in 129/226 (57%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in nearly 3/5 patients without a definitive diagnosis after routine EEG, SVEM allowed us to reach a diagnosis. This procedure should be encouraged in this setting, given its time-effectiveness compared with LVEM.