Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26240749›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in psychopharmacology2015

Legal highs: staying on top of the flood of novel psychoactive substances.

David Baumeister, Luis M Tojo, Derek K Tracy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
17.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 156 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The dilemma of new psychoactive substances: A growing threat.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  10. Abuse of tropicamide eye drops: review of clinical data.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David BaumeisterDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, UK.
Luis M TojoStress, Psychiatry and Immunology Lab, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, UK.
Derek K TracyConsultant Psychiatrist and Associate Clinical Director, Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, Princess Royal University Hospital, and Cognition, Schizophrenia and Imaging Laboratory, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London BR6 8NY, UK.
King's College London · GBOxleas NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been growing clinical, public, and media awareness and concern about the availability and potential harmfulness of so-called 'legal highs', which are more appropriately called new or novel psychoactive substances (NPS). A cat-and-mouse process has emerged wherein unknown chemists and laboratories are producing new, and as yet nonproscribed, compounds for human consumption; and as soon as they are banned, which they inevitably are, slightly modified analogues are produced to circumvent new laws. This rapidly changing environment, 81 new substances were identified in 2013 alone, has led to confusion for clinicians, psychopharmacologists, and the public at large. Our difficulties in keeping up with the process has had a two-fold negative effect: the danger of ignoring what is confusing; and the problem that some of the newer synthesized compounds appear ever more potent. This review aims to circumscribe a quick moving and growing field, and to categorize NPS into five major groups based upon their 'parent' compounds: stimulants similar to cocaine, amphetamines and ecstasy; cannabinoids; benzodiazepine based drugs; dissociatives similar to ketamine and phencyclidine (PCP); and those modelled after classic hallucinogens such as LSD and psilocybin. Pharmacodynamic actions, subjective and physical effects, harmfulness, risk of dependency and, where appropriate, putative clinical potentials are described for each class. Clinicians might encounter NPS in various ways: anecdotal reportage; acute intoxication; as part of a substance misuse profile; and as a precipitant or perpetuating factor for longer-term physical and psychological ill health. Current data are overall limited, and much of our knowledge and treatment strategies are based upon those of the 'parent' compound. There is a critical need for more research in this field, and for professionals to make themselves more aware of this growing issue and how it might affect those we see clinically and try to help: a brave new world of so-called 'psychonauts' consuming NPS will also need informed 'psychotherapeutonauts'. The paper should serve as a primer for clinicians and interested readers, as well as provide a framework into which to place the new substances that will inevitably be synthesized in the future.

Indexed as

legal highsnovel psychoactive substances

Identifiers

PMID26240749
PMCPMC4521440
OpenAlexW2098915861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.