Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30132114›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2018

The pitfalls of per se thresholds in accurately identifying acute cannabis intoxication at autopsy.

Mary K Schwerdt, James R Gill

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Mary K SchwerdtThe Frank H. Netter M.D. School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, 370 Bassett Rd, North Haven, CT, 06473, USA.
James R GillOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner, 11 Shuttle Rd, Farmington, CT, 06032, USA. jgill@ocme.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6900-8025

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some laws in the United States define cannabis-impaired driving criteria using various per se language that uses specific concentrations of various cannabinoid compounds to establish driving-under-the-influence (DUI). We hypothesize that there will be decedents whose postmortem toxicology profiles would be considered indicative of an acute cannabinoid intoxication under varying DUI per se laws, despite having survived longer than the expected duration of cannabinoid impairment effects. This study examined decedents in whom quantified cannabis metabolites were detected in Connecticut medical examiner autopsy samples, in which the medically-confined survival interval was longer (4-12 and > 12 h) than the expected duration of cannabinoid impairment effects. Several of the 15 decedents, despite being intubated and/or comatose during the medically-confined period of abstinence, would have exceeded DUI per se limits based upon their toxicology results. The use of drug concentrations alone to equate to an acute cannabis intoxication may result in inappropriate arrest, prosecution, and civil liability.

Indexed as

Driving Under the InfluenceAdolescentAdultCannabinoidsCause of DeathFemaleForensic ToxicologyHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsYoung AdultCannabinoidsAutopsyCannabinoidsDriving under the influence lawsForensic pathologyToxicology

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.