ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Understanding the UK Psychoactive Substances Act.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AB-MDMSBA-Not a Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonist.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Trends in Mortality From Novel Psychoactive Substances as "Legal Highs": Gender Differences in Manner of Death and Implications for Risk Differences for Women.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Deaths from novel psychoactive substances in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Evaluating the impact of the UK psychoactive substances act 2016.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Understanding the UK Psychoactive Substances Act.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Review
- The challenge of the novel psychoactive substances: How have we responded and what are the implications of this response?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- New psychoactive substances: a review and updates.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review paper is based on a talk given at the British Pharmaceutical Society Winter Meeting in 2018 derived from the Home Office Report on the workings of the UK Psychoactive Substances Act (PSA) published in November 2018. The review deals with the context in which the PSA 2016 arose and how this piece of legislation differs from other UK drug regulations. It attempts to put the PSA in context with other control schemes being instituted around the world and to assess the success of the Act in its first 2 years of implementation. For more details the reader is referred to Review of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, Home Office, November 2018.
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.