Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30483610›Full record

ArticleForensic sciences research2016

Guidelines for Collection of Biological Samples for Clinical and Forensic Toxicological Analysis.

Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira, Duarte Nuno Vieira, Teresa Magalhães

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic sciences research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. The Rise of Fentanyl: Molecular Aspects and Forensic Investigations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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.

Ricardo Jorge Dinis-OliveiraDepartment of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7430-6297
Duarte Nuno VieiraFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7366-6765
Teresa MagalhãesDepartment of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8098-8076

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article aims to review general procedures for sampling of routinely collected as well as on alternative samples that may provide additional information regarding intoxication. These approaches may be applied whenever sample collection for clinical and forensic toxicology is required and should be considered as general guidelines that must be adapted to each specific case. It is expected that this article will help toxicologists and other forensic experts to accomplish their mission, since the toxicological result is first influenced by the quality and quantity of the sample available for analysis. These guidelines were approved by the European Council of Legal Medicine.

Indexed as

Forensic scienceforensic toxicologyguidelineskits and labellingsamples collectionstorage and preservation

Identifiers

PMID30483610
PMCPMC6197137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.