ReviewFrontiers in chemistry2020
Tackling the Problem of Sensing Commonly Abused Drugs Through Nanomaterials and (Bio)Recognition Approaches.
Review in Frontiers in chemistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of sensors to combat crime and routes to further sensor development.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Review
- The Evolution of Illicit-Drug Detection: From Conventional Approaches to Cutting-Edge Immunosensors-A Comprehensive Review.Biosensors · 2024Review
- How new nanotechnologies are changing the opioid analysis scenery? A comparison with classical analytical methods.Forensic sciences research · 2024Review
- A General Review of Methodologies Used in the Determination of Cholesterol (CFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Recent Advances in the Development of Portable Electrochemical Sensors for Controlled Substances.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We summarize herein the literature in the last decade, involving the use of nanomaterials and various (bio)recognition elements, such as antibodies, aptamers and molecularly imprinted polymers, for the development of sensitive and selective (bio)sensors for illicit drugs with a focus on electrochemical transduction systems. The use and abuse of illicit drugs remains an increasing challenge for worldwide authorities and, therefore, it is important to have accurate methods to detect them in seized samples, biological fluids and wastewaters. They are recently classified as the latest group of "emerging pollutants," as their consumption has increased tremendously in recent years. Nanomaterials, antibodies, aptamers and molecularly imprinted polymers have gained much attention over the last decade in the development of (bio)sensors for a myriad of applications. The applicability of these (nano)materials, functionalized or not, has significantly increased, and are therefore highly suitable for use in the detection of drugs. Lately, such functionalized nanoscale materials have assisted in the detection of illicit drugs fingerprints, providing large surface area, functional groups and unique properties that facilitate sensitive and selective sensing. The review discusses the types of commonly abused drugs and their toxicological implications, classification of functionalized nanomaterials (graphene, carbon nanotubes), their fabrication, and their application on real samples in different fields of forensic science. Biosensors for drugs of abuse from the last decade's literature are then exemplified. It also offers insights into the prospects and challenges of bringing the functionalized nanobased technology to the end user in the laboratories or in-field.
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.