Sudebno-meditsinskaia ekspertiza · 2025
[On the challenges and shortfalls of expert assessment of maxillofacial injuries with concussions according to medical documents only].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yagmurov M O, Tolmachev I A, Bozhchenko A P, Khrustaleva Yu A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the shortfalls of medical documents for victims with facial injuries and concussions and the related challenges during forensic medical expert assessment of the injury.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The medical records of the victims and the reports of forensic examination of living persons were examined.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Facial injuries with concussion account for about 20% of all examinations of living persons. The morphological essence of the described lesions differs significantly among forensic medical experts and clinical doctors. Clinicians provide an excessive or insufficiently validated diagnosis of concussion, which is not confirmed during forensic medical examination in nearly 40% of cases. Forensic medical experts could determine the nature of trauma based on the study of medical documents only in 68% of cases. The efficacy of in-person expert examinations of victims is low. Some ambiguous provisions of regulations and medical criteria for determining the severity of harm caused to human health allow for arbitrary interpretation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The medical records of the victims and the reports of forensic examination of living persons were examined.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Facial injuries with concussion account for about 20% of all examinations of living persons. The morphological essence of the described lesions differs significantly among forensic medical experts and clinical doctors. Clinicians provide an excessive or insufficiently validated diagnosis of concussion, which is not confirmed during forensic medical examination in nearly 40% of cases. Forensic medical experts could determine the nature of trauma based on the study of medical documents only in 68% of cases. The efficacy of in-person expert examinations of victims is low. Some ambiguous provisions of regulations and medical criteria for determining the severity of harm caused to human health allow for arbitrary interpretation.