Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34347332›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2022

A new quantitative drug checking technology for harm reduction: Pilot study in Vancouver, Canada using paper spray mass spectrometry.

Scott A Borden, Armin Saatchi, Gregory W Vandergrift, Jan Palaty, Mark Lysyshyn, Chris G Gill

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Scott A BordenApplied Environmental Research Laboratories, Department of Chemistry, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9748-1290
Armin SaatchiApplied Environmental Research Laboratories, Department of Chemistry, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0388-5505
Gregory W VandergriftApplied Environmental Research Laboratories, Department of Chemistry, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8962-9897
Jan PalatyLifeLabs Medical Laboratories, Burnaby, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8129-0761
Mark LysyshynSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6684-2030
Chris G GillApplied Environmental Research Laboratories, Department of Chemistry, Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7696-5894
University of Victoria · CABiogate Laboratories (Canada) · CASimon Fraser University · CAVancouver Coastal Health · CAVancouver Island University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDrug checking services for harm reduction and overdose prevention have been implemented in many jurisdictions as a public health intervention in response to the opioid overdose crisis. This study demonstrates the first on-site use of paper spray mass spectrometry for quantitative drug checking to address the limitations of current on-site drug testing technologies.

methodsPaper spray mass spectrometry was used to provide on-site drug checking services at a supervised consumption site in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada during a 2-day pilot test in August 2019. The method included the targeted quantitative measurement of 49 drugs and an untargeted full scan to assist in identifying unknown/unexpected components.

resultsDuring the pilot, 113 samples were submitted for analysis, with 88 (78%) containing the client expected substance. Fentanyl was detected in 45 of 59 expected fentanyl samples, and in 50 (44%) samples overall at a median concentration of 3.6% (w/w%). The synthetic precursor of fentanyl, 4-anilino-N-phenethyl-piperidine (4-ANPP), was found in 74.0% of all fentanyl samples at a median concentration of 2.2%, suggesting widespread poor manufacturing practices. Etizolam was detected in 10 submitted samples anticipated to be fentanyl at a median concentration of 2.5%. No clients submitting these samples expected etizolam or a benzodiazepine in their sample. In three instances, it was co-measured with fentanyl, and in seven cases it was detected alone. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsThe quantitative capabilities and low detection limits demonstrated by paper spray mass spectrometry offer distinct benefits over existing on-site drug checking methods and harm reduction services.

Indexed as

Drug OverdoseIllicit DrugsAnalgesics, OpioidBritish ColumbiaCanadaFentanylHarm ReductionHumansMass SpectrometryPilot ProjectsTechnologyAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylIllicit Drugsdrug checkingetizolamfentanylharm reductionpaper spray mass spectrometry (PS-MS)

Identifiers

PMID34347332
PMCPMC9292878
OpenAlexW3192037069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.