ReviewBehavioural pharmacology2013
Abuse liability of novel 'legal high' designer stimulants: evidence from animal models.
Review in Behavioural pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Atypical dopamine efflux caused by 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) via the human dopamine transporter.Journal of chemical neuroanatomy · 2017Article
- Reinforcing Effects of Cathinone NPS in the Intravenous Drug Self-Administration Paradigm.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2017Review
- Neuropharmacology of 3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), Its Metabolites, and Related Analogs.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2017Review
- Baths salts, spice, and related designer drugs: the science behind the headlines.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2014Review
- Effects of α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone and 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone, two synthetic cathinones commonly found in second-generation "bath salts," on intracranial self-stimulation thresholds in rats.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2014Article
- Awash in a sea of 'bath salts': implications for biomedical research and public health.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2014Article
- Synthetic cathinones and their rewarding and reinforcing effects in rodents.Advances in neuroscience (Hindawi) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the last few years, the variety and recreational use of 'legal high' designer stimulants has increased to unprecedented levels. Since their rapid emergence in drug markets, numerous adverse physical and psychological effects have been extensively reported. However, less is understood about the potential for compulsive use of and addiction to these drugs. Recently, a small collection of scientific studies assessing the abuse liability of these drugs has emerged. This new knowledge has been derived primarily from animal studies using behaviorally based procedures which include intravenous self-administration, conditioned place preference, intracranial self-stimulation, and drug discrimination. In this review we present a brief history of the recent rise in designer stimulant use followed by a short methodological description of the aforementioned procedures. We then review neurochemical and abuse liability studies on designer stimulants that have been examined to date. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of these collective findings, our current understanding of the abuse liability of these drugs in relation to each other and the illicit drugs they are designed to mimic, and recommend future research directions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.