ReviewBMC chemistry2019
A review of bioanalytical techniques for evaluation of cannabis (Marijuana, weed, Hashish) in human hair.
Review in BMC chemistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Sustainable Air-Assisted Liquid-Liquid Microextraction Procedure Coupled to Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry for the Determination of 11-Nor-9-carboxy-ΔJournal of xenobiotics · 2026Article
- Cannabinomics in the flower of Cannabis sativa: a systematic review of extraction, analytical identification, and micro/nanoencapsulation methods for bioactive metabolites.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Review
- LC-MS/MS quantification of olanzapine in hair after alkaline digestion.Drug testing and analysis · 2025Article
- Substance use assessment: comparing self-reports with objective data in a research setting.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Rapid GC-MS method for screening seized drugs in forensic investigations: optimization and validation.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Article
- Detection and quantification of etomidate and metomidate in human hairs by ultraperformance liquid chromatography with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS).Forensic toxicology · 2024Article
- Associations between hair-derived cannabinoid levels, self-reported use, and cannabis-related problems.Psychopharmacology · 2024Article
- Review
- A cartridge-based device for automated analyses of solid matrices by online sample prep-capillary LC-MS/MS.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Alternative matrices in forensic toxicology: a critical review.Forensic toxicology · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cannabis products (marijuana, weed, hashish) are among the most widely abused psychoactive drugs in the world, due to their euphorigenic and anxiolytic properties. Recently, hair analysis is of great interest in analytical, clinical, and forensic sciences due to its non-invasiveness, negligible risk of infection and tampering, facile storage, and a wider window of detection. Hair analysis is now widely accepted as evidence in courts around the world. Hair analysis is very feasible to complement saliva, blood tests, and urinalysis. In this review, we have focused on state of the art in hair analysis of cannabis with particular attention to hair sample preparation for cannabis analysis involving pulverization, extraction and screening techniques followed by confirmatory tests (e.g., GC-MS and LC-MS/MS). We have reviewed the literature for the past 10 years' period with special emphasis on cannabis quantification using mass spectrometry. The pros and cons of all the published methods have also been discussed along with the prospective future of cannabis analysis.
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.