Severe And Fatal Electrical Injuries In Babil, Iraq: A Retrospective Clinical-Forensic Reappraisal Of 41 Cases
Abstract
Overview: Electrical injuries are among the major causes of sudden death, severe physiological disturbances, and preventable accidents, making them a significant forensic and public health concern. Hence, it is essential to understand the epidemiological characteristics of electrical injury and the underlying injury mechanisms for better prevention strategies and forensic investigations.
Problem Background: Fatal electrocution has remained a challenge in areas with poorly integrated clinical documentation, electrical exposure assessment, and forensic investigations despite the advances in electrical safety and emergency medicine. Iraq provides valuable evidence of scenarios where inconsistencies in reported findings, limited sample sizes, and incomplete exposure information restrict scientific interpretation and generalizability of findings.
Research Contribution: This study critically re-examines all the reported electrical injury cases in the Babylon governorate, Iraq and revises the historical studies with regard to findings from epidemiological studies, pointing out inconsistencies; the study also proposes an integrated framework involving a forensic–clinical assessment that focuses on the systematic correlations of electrical exposure characteristics, physiological injury mechanisms, clinical outcomes, and post-mortem evidence.
Research Methodology: Data from 41 cases of severe electrical injury from May 2014 to May 2015 were aggregated for the retrospective descriptive reappraisal in this study. Reported frequencies and percentages were checked for consistency and correlated against relevant forensic research conducted between 2022 and 2026. A total of 28 males (68.29 %) and 13 females (31.71 %) were reported in the historical dataset. Thirty-seven cases (90.24 %) were exposed to low voltage, while 38 persons died (92.68%). The proposed framework was conceptually developed, as no predictive model was implemented or validated.
Conclusion: The predominance of reported low-voltage exposure was demonstrated within the selected severe-injury cohort; the study highlights the importance of standardised multidisciplinary forensic assessment. However, it is important that future studies improve data reliability, strengthen mortality assessment, and support evidence-based electrical injury prevention via implementation of multicenter investigations that integrate clinical, forensic, and electrical engineering evidence.
Keywords
Downloads
References
- M. Doğan, İ. Çoban, O. Şahan, İ. Üzün, and M. E. Aksoy, “Electrocution-related deaths in Türkiye: A 5-year autopsy-based forensic study of 386 cases with multimodal medicolegal evaluation,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 1264–1274, 2026. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.70303.
- M. Al Bayat et al., “Electrocution-related fatalities in Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia: A 24-year retrospective autopsy study,” Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 15, art. no. 32, 2025. doi: 10.1186/s41935-025-00452-2.
- S. Gangidi, M. Govande, K. McCollum, and R. C. Lee, “Electrical shock injuries: An analysis of voltage, frequency, and contact mode determinants,” Frontiers in Disaster and Emergency Medicine, vol. 2, 2024, doi: 10.3389/femer.2024.1477987.
- E. Hawkins, G. Gostigian, and S. Diurba, “Lightning strike injuries,” Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 667–678, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2024.02.021.
- V. Waldmann et al., “Electrical cardiac injuries: Current concepts and management,” European Heart Journal, vol. 39, no. 16, pp. 1459–1465, 2018, doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx142.
- M. Alqassim, R. Ewiss, and H. Al Ali, “The role of forensic engineering in the diagnosis of electrocution fatalities: Two case reports,” Safety and Health at Work, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 124–130, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2022.11.002.
- M. Askar et al., “Diagnostic forensic tools in the investigation of electrocution fatalities: A case study,” Analytical Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 2, art. no. e70032, 2025. doi: 10.1002/ansa.70032.
- R. D. Riley et al., “Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model,” BMJ, vol. 368, art. no. m441, 2020, doi: 10.1136/bmj.m441.
- E. von Elm et al., “The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement,” PLoS Medicine, 2007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296.
- G. S. Collins et al., “TRIPOD+AI statement: Updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods,” BMJ, 2024. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-078378.
- G. S. Collins et al., “Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 1): From development to external validation,” BMJ, vol. 384, art. no. e074819, 2024, doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074819.
- R. D. Riley et al., “Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 3): Calculating the sample size required for an external validation study,” BMJ, vol. 384, art. no. e074821, 2024, doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074821.
- R. F. Wolff et al., “PROBAST: A tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 170, no. 1, pp. 51–58, 2019, doi: 10.7326/M18-1376.
- R. D. Riley et al., “Evaluation of clinical prediction models (part 2): How to undertake an external validation study,” BMJ, vol. 384, art. no. e074820, 2024, doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074820.
- D. Khor et al., “Electrical injuries and outcomes: A retrospective review,” Burns, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1739–1744, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2023.03.015.
- S. Corrall, S. Laws, and A. Rice, “Low-voltage electrical injuries and the electrocardiogram: Is a ‘normal’ electrocardiogram sufficient for safe discharge from care? A systematic review,” British Paramedic Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 27–36, 2023, doi: 10.29045/14784726.2023.12.8.3.27.