ArticleMetabolites2021
Enantioselective Quantification of Amphetamine and Metabolites in Serum Samples: Forensic Evaluation and Estimation of Consumption Time.
Article in Metabolites, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Forensic Impact of the Omics Science Involved in the Wound: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Polysaccharide-Based Chiral Stationary Phases for Enantioseparations in Liquid-Phase Techniques: An Overview.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of toxicokinetic profiles of methamphetamine and its metabolites at toxic and therapeutic doses in mice.Forensic toxicology · 2026Article
- Review
- Enantiomer-specific analysis of amphetamine in urine, oral fluid and blood.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2024Article
- Detection of lisdexamfetamine and its metabolite d-amphetamine in urine and gastric contents collected from a cadaver at forensic autopsy.Forensic toxicology · 2023Article
- Interpol review of toxicology 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In forensic toxicology, amphetamine intoxications represent one of the most common case groups and present difficult questions for toxicologists. Estimating the time of consumption and the current influence of the stimulant is particularly difficult when only total amphetamine concentrations are considered. Stereoselective analysis and the consideration of metabolites can provide valuable information to facilitate interpretation. An enantioselective liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for detection of amphetamine, norephedrine and 4-hydroxyamphetamine was developed. Validation showed satisfactory selectivity, sensitivity, linearity (0.5-250 ng/mL), precision and accuracy for all enantiomers. The method was applied to a collective of 425 forensic serum samples and 30 serum samples from psychiatric inpatients stating their last time of amphetamine consumption. Norephedrine and 4-hydroxyamphetamine were detected more frequently at higher amphetamine concentrations and at lower amphetamine (R)/(S) concentration ratios, possibly indicating recent consumption. Mean (R)/(S) ratio of amphetamine was 1.14, whereas higher ratios (mean 1.36) were found for amphetamine concentrations below 100 ng/mL. The (R)/(S) ratios of psychiatric inpatients significantly correlated with the reported time intervals to last consumption. The use of amphetamine (R)/(S) ratios and the simultaneous detection of metabolites are promising factors that can facilitate estimation of consumption time and current impairment.
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.