ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2022
Blood concentrations of new synthetic opioids.
Review in International journal of legal medicine, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpol review of forensic toxicology, 2023-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Mapping the unknown: an anchor-based molecular networking workflow for comprehensive identification of new psychoactive substances and analogues.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Detection, chemical analysis, and pharmacological characterization of dipyanone and other new synthetic opioids related to prescription drugs.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Comparative neuropharmacology of structurally distinct non-fentanyl opioids that are appearing on recreational drug markets worldwide.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2023Article
- Plasma pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic effects of the 2-benzylbenzimidazole synthetic opioid, isotonitazene, in male rats.Psychopharmacology · 2023Article
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
purposeOver the last decade, there has been a significant growth in the market and number of new psychoactive substances (NPS). One of the NPS groups that has grown rapidly in recent years, bringing a new set of problems, consists of new synthetic opioids. The extreme potency of these compounds poses a high risk of acute poisoning, as an overdose can cause respiratory depression. Most of the information regarding human pharmacokinetics of new opioids is based on toxicological case reports and the data on concentrations of new opioids in human blood are scarce. The interpretation of results usually requires a comparison to previously published cases; therefore, a referenced compilation of previously published concentration data would be useful.
methodsThe data were collected by searching the PubMed and Scopus databases and by using the Google search engine. All the available data from articles and reports that measured new opioid concentrations in plasma, serum, or whole blood were included in the data analysis.
resultsThe presented tables list the observed concentrations in fatal and nonfatal cases involving 37 novel synthetic opioids.
conclusionsBlood levels of new opioids are extremely difficult to interpret. Low blood concentrations of these substances do not rule out acute poisoning as their high potency creates a risk of respiratory depression even at low doses. Opioid tolerance, frequent presence of other drugs, and additional diseases make it impossible to define concentration ranges, especially the minimum fatal concentrations. This report provides quick access to the source articles quantifying novel synthetic opioids.
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.