Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31770457›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020

How deaths can help clinicians and policy-makers understand the risks of novel psychoactive substances.

John Martin Corkery, Fabrizio Schifano, Giovanni Martinotti

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Alprazolam-related deaths in Scotland, 2004-2020.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

John Martin CorkeryPsychopharmacology, Drug Misuse and Novel Psychoactive Substances Research Unit, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3849-817X
Fabrizio SchifanoPsychopharmacology, Drug Misuse and Novel Psychoactive Substances Research Unit, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.
Giovanni MartinottiPsychopharmacology, Drug Misuse and Novel Psychoactive Substances Research Unit, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.
University of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel psychoactive substances (NPS), especially those newly created, are largely an unknown quantity, particularly in terms of their potential serious adverse effects. This means that policy-makers and clinicians are under-informed about appropriate responses. Collation of detailed information on deaths related to NPS use can help in providing knowledge and understanding these aspects of the NPS phenomenon. The purpose of this review is to outline the role(s) which such evidence-based data can play in this respect. UK NPS-related cases demonstrate differences in definitions used by the General Mortality Registers, and differences between countries, not only in terms of the type of NPS implicated in deaths, but the number and extent of such deaths over time. NPS deaths are continuing to increase numerically and as a proportion of all drug-poisoning deaths. In order to better understand how specific molecules contribute to and/or cause death, detailed information collected by Special Mortality Registers can provide examples of substances' modes of action, adverse effects, symptomatology, treatment interventions, mechanisms of death, etc. This information can provide clinicians and policy-makers with objective information on the serious harms from such emerging molecules. Such evidence-based advice informs public health interventions, service provision and policy decisions on regulation and control of NPS. However, without reliable, accurate and complete information that is correctly collated, scientifically analysed and disseminated in a timely manner, an understanding of the phenomenon of what deaths can be ascribed to NPS, their characteristics and nature will remain unachieved, and thus limit what can be done to reduce them.

Indexed as

Illicit DrugsHumansPolicyPsychotropic DrugsIllicit DrugsPsychotropic Drugscliniciansdeathsinformation needsnovel psychoactive substancespolicy-makers

Identifiers

PMID31770457
PMCPMC7080619
OpenAlexW2990420183

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.