Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27515931›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2016

The use of nails as an alternative matrix for the long-term detection of previous drug intake: validation of sensitive UHPLC-MS/MS methods for the quantification of 76 substances and comparison of analytical results for drugs in nail and hair samples.

Franziska Krumbiegel, Martin Hastedt, Lena Westendorf, André Niebel, Maximilian Methling, Maria Kristina Parr, Michael Tsokos

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Franziska KrumbiegelInstitute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Turmstrasse 21 Haus N, 10559, Berlin, Germany. franziska.krumbiegel@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2024-8084
Martin HastedtInstitute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Turmstrasse 21 Haus N, 10559, Berlin, Germany.
Lena WestendorfInstitute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Turmstrasse 21 Haus N, 10559, Berlin, Germany.
André NiebelInstitute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Turmstrasse 21 Haus N, 10559, Berlin, Germany.
Maximilian MethlingInstitute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Turmstrasse 21 Haus N, 10559, Berlin, Germany.
Maria Kristina ParrPharmaceutical Chemistry, Institute of Pharmacy, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Michael TsokosInstitute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Turmstrasse 21 Haus N, 10559, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis article describes the validation of multi-target methods for the determination of 76 different analytes in hair and nail samples. Segmented hair and nail samples taken from autopsy cases were included in this study.

methodDrugs of abuse, psychotropic drugs, and other drugs were included for the validation of this method. Hair and nail samples were ground using a ball mill and extracted for 18 h. Extracts were measured using a UHPLC-triple quadrupole-mass analyzer. Analytes were separated on a RP 18 column under gradient elution of the mobile phases, water with 0.1 % formic acid and acetonitrile. Whole nail and hair samples from seven autopsy cases were split into segments and analyzed.

resultsThe entire method was validated according to the German Society of Forensic Toxicology guidelines. In addition, the concentration ratios of selected substances and their metabolites were calculated. Similar concentration ratios in hair and nails were detected for 3,4-methylendioxyamphetamine (MDA)/3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA), 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP)/methadone, and bisnortilidine/nortilidine in some of the cases. Reduced 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM) and cocaine concentrations were observed as a result of sample preparation using the ball mill. Previous heroin intake could be assumed from the detection of 6-MAM and morphine in only one nail segment in one case.

conclusionsNail samples may serve as an alternative matrix for the detection of long-term consumption of a wide range of drugs. Based on our results, drug concentrations in nails are not comparable to those in hair. The main mechanisms for drug incorporation into the nails may be during the formation of the nail plate by the germinal matrix. However, external contamination can also affect the analysis of nail clippings.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overChromatography, LiquidFemaleForensic ToxicologyHairHumansMaleMass SpectrometryMiddle AgedNailsNarcoticsPharmaceutical PreparationsSubstance Abuse DetectionSubstance-Related DisordersNarcoticsPharmaceutical PreparationsDrugs of abuseHair analysisNail analysisPostmortem samplesPsychotropic drugsSegmental analysis

Identifiers

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.