ReviewJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2020
Fatal and non-fatal health incidents related to recreational ecstasy use.
Review in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hard Boiled: Alcohol Use as a Risk Factor for MDMA-Induced Hyperthermia: a Systematic Review.Neurotoxicity research · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- MDMA for the Treatment of Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- 3,4-Methylenedioxy methamphetamine, synthetic cathinones and psychedelics: From recreational to novel psychotherapeutic drugs.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Review
- Developing a new national MDMA policy: Results of a multi-decision multi-criterion decision analysis.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Amphetamine-Decreased Progesterone and Estradiol Release in Rat Granulosa Cells: The Regulatory Role of cAMP- and CaBiomedicines · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe recreational drug ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) is currently used world-wide. Severe (including fatal) health incidents related to ecstasy have been reported but a risk assessment of acute non-fatal and fatal ecstasy-related health incidents has never been performed.
methodsIn the current risk assessment review, national data of non-fatal health incidents collected in the Netherlands were combined with the nationwide exposure to ecstasy, that is, last-year prevalence of ecstasy use. In addition, the annual number of ecstasy-related deaths in Great Britain (Scotland, Wales and England) was used to assess the risk of fatal ecstasy-related cases.
resultsIn the Netherlands, the estimated risk of a moderate to severe acute health incident following the use of ecstasy is one in 900 pills (0.11%), whereas for cocaine it is one in 1600 doses (0.06%) and for gamma-hydroxybutyrate one in 95 doses (1.05%). With respect to ecstasy-related deaths in Great Britain, the estimated risk of ecstasy alone per user is 0.01-0.06%, which is close to the range of the fatality risk in chronic alcohol users (0.01-0.02%), amphetamine users (0.005%) and cocaine users (0.05%), but much lower than that of opiate use (heroin and morphine: 0.35%).
conclusionThe current review shows that almost no data are available on the health risks of ecstasy use. The few data that are available show that ecstasy is not a safe substance. However, compared to opiates (heroin, morphine), the risk of acute ecstasy-related adverse health incidents per ecstasy user and per ecstasy use session is relatively low.
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.