Background: Accurate estimation of the postmortem interval (PMI) is critical in forensic death investigations. Traditional signs of death—algor mortis, livor mortis, and rigor mortis—are generally reliable only within the first two to three days after death, with their accuracy decreasing as decomposition progresses. This paper presents a systematic review conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, aiming to evaluate and compare current methods for estimating the PMI. Specifically, the study identifies both traditional and modern techniques, analyzes their advantages, limitations, and applicable timeframes, critically synthesizes the literature, and highlights the importance of combining multiple approaches to improve accuracy. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, following the PRISMA guidelines. The review included original articles and reviews that evaluated PMI estimation methods (through thanatological signs, entomology, microbial succession, molecular, imaging, and omics approaches). Extracted data included study design, methodology, PMI range, and accuracy information. Out of the 1245 identified records, 50 studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Results: Emerging methods, such as molecular markers, microbial succession, omics technologies, and advanced imaging show improved accuracy across extended postmortem intervals. RNA degradation methods demonstrated higher accuracy within the first 72 h, while entomology and microbial analysis are more applicable during intermediate and late decomposition stages. Although no single method is universally reliable, combining traditional and modern approaches tailored to case-specific factors improves overall PMI estimation accuracy. Conclusions: This study supports the use of an integrative, multidisciplinary, and evidence-based approach to improve time-since-death estimation. Such a strategy enhances forensic outcomes by enabling more precise PMI estimates in complex or delayed cases, increasing legal reliability, and supporting court-admissible expert testimony based on validated, multi-method protocols.
Strete et al. (2025) studied this question.