ReviewEcotoxicology (London, England)2021
Wildlife poisoning: a novel scoring system and review of analytical methods for anticoagulant rodenticide determination.
Review in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2021. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Forensic Toxicology in Veterinary Medicine: Current Perspectives, Analytical Progress, and Future Challenges.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Rapid and Robust Analysis of Coumatetralyl in Environmental Water and Human Urine Using a Portable Raman Spectrometer.ACS omega · 2023Article
- Methods in food defence: a simple and robust screening for 16 rodenticides by LC-DAD/FLD following QuEChERS-based extraction.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2022Article
- White-Tailed Eagles' (Toxics · 2022Article
- Developing a European network of analytical laboratories and government institutions to prevent poisoning of raptors.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2022Article
- Editorial: Animal Poisoning and Biomarkers of Toxicity.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) are commonly used to control rodent populations and frequently involved in wildlife and domestic animal poisoning. These poisoning cases (especially for ARs) are a challenge for forensic toxicologists, and adequate post-mortem examination and toxicological analyses become essential for a proper diagnosis. Publications describing different analytical methods for AR analysis in biological samples are growing, and a clear compilation of the overall picture is needed to standardize methodologies in future research. This review aims to compile and compare the analytical procedures applied for AR determination in the literature. Using this information, a scoring system was developed for those techniques using liver and blood as matrices, and the techniques were ranked considering different criteria (i.e. sample amount required, recoveries, limits of quantification (LOQs), number of ARs analysed, points of the calibration curve and multi-class methods). This review shows an overview of the main methods used for AR analysis in forensic toxicology and will help to elucidate future directions to improve multi-residue techniques to detect the ARs involved in wildlife lethal poisoning.
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.