ArticleToxicology reports2021
Hair analysis for New Psychoactive Substances (NPS): Still far from becoming the tool to study NPS spread in the community?
Article in Toxicology reports, 2021. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- N-Ethylpentedrone: first hair detection and human metabolic profiling across multiple biological matrices using UHPLC-HRMS, molecular networking and in silico prediction.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Characterization and Determination of the New Psychoactive Substance Benzylone: Application in a Biological Fluid.Magnetic resonance in chemistry : MRC · 2025Article
- Cyclic Ion Mobility of Isomeric New Psychoactive Substances Employing Characteristic Arrival Time Distribution Profiles and Adduct Separation.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2024Article
- Understanding the Mechanisms of Action and Effects of Drugs of Abuse.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this review article, we performed an overview of extraction and chromatographic analysis methods of NPS in hair from 2007 to 2021, evaluating the limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), limit of reporting (LOR), and limit of identification (LOI) values reported for each NPS. Our review aimed to highlight the limitations of modern hair analytical techniques, and the prerequisites for the proper evaluation and use of analytical results in relation to the objectives of NPS hair analysis. In the selected studies the detection of a total of 280 NPS was reported. The detected NPS belonged to seven classes: synthetic cannabinoids with 109 different substances, synthetic opioids with 58, cathinones with 50, phenethylamines with 34, other NPS with 15, tryptamines with ten, and piperazines with four substances. The NPS hair analysis of real forensic/ clinical cases reported the detection of only 80 NPS (out of the 280 targeted), in significantly higher levels than the respective LODs. The analytical protocols reviewed herein for NPS hair analysis showed continuously growing trends to identify as many NPS as possible; the extraction methods seem to have a limited potential to improve, while the various mass spectroscopic techniques and relevant instrumentation provide an enormous field for development and application. Hair is a biological indicator of the past chronic, sub-chronic, and, even, in certain cases, acute exposure to xenobiotics. Therefore, future research in the field could progress NPS hair analysis and aim the monitoring of NPS expansion and extent of use in the community.
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.