Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36454482›Full record

ReviewForensic toxicology2022

Ethyl glucuronide and ethyl sulfate: a review of their roles in forensic toxicology analysis of alcohol postmortem.

Salma N Alsayed, Asia G Alharbi, Asrar S Alhejaili, Reham J Aljukhlub, Danih H Al-Amoudi, Asma I Ashankyty, Mansour A Alzahrani, Torki A Zughaibi, Omar A Alharbi, Ali M Kheyami and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Methanol intoxication in the central region of Saudi Arabia: Five case studies.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Salma N AlsayedPathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, Prince Muhammed Bin Abdul-Aziz Hospital, National Guard Health Affairs, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, Saudi Arabia.
Asia G AlharbiCenter of Excellence Genomic Medicine Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Asrar S AlhejailiPathology and Laboratory Medicine Department, Prince Muhammed Bin Abdul-Aziz Hospital, National Guard Health Affairs, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, Saudi Arabia.
Reham J AljukhlubDepartment of Medical Laboratory Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Danih H Al-AmoudiDepartment of Laboratory, Al-Thagar Hospital, Ministry of Health, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Asma I AshankytyDepartment of Medical Laboratory Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Mansour A AlzahraniPoison Control and Forensic Chemistry Center, Ministry of Health, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, Saudi Arabia.
Torki A ZughaibiDepartment of Medical Laboratory Technology, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Omar A AlharbiPoison Control and Forensic Chemistry Center, Ministry of Health, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, Saudi Arabia.
Ali M KheyamiPoison Control and Forensic Chemistry Center, Ministry of Health, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, Saudi Arabia.
Nawal M HelmiDepartment of Medical Laboratory Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Mansour A TobaiqyDepartment of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Almonther A HershanDepartment of Medical Laboratory Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
David G WatsonStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, 161, Cathedral Street, Glasgow, G4 0RE 1, Scotland.
Ahmed I Al-AsmariKing Abdul-Aziz Hospital, Ministry of Health, 6470, Jeddah, 21442, Saudi Arabia. Ahmadalasmari@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4488-2194
University of Jeddah · SAMinistry of Health · SAKing Abdulaziz University · SAKing Abdul Aziz University Hospital · SANational Guard Health Affairs · SAUniversity of Strathclyde · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis review presents the current methods used for determining ethyl glucuronide (EtG) and ethyl sulfate (EtS) concentrations in postmortem specimens, including sample preparation, analysis and the role of EtG and EtS in the postmortem assessment of the extent of alcohol abuse.

methodsPapers pertaining to postmortem investigation were collected from scientific databases and reviewed. The papers were published between January 2006 and October 2020.

resultsMost of the analyses involved postmortem blood and urine samples, with a few reports using other bodily specimens and tissues. The method validation was not conducted for all applications. These reports were mostly intended to present data rather than interpret them, and the lack of effort in relating these ethanol biomarkers with the cause of death and/or determination of the time of deaths due to ethanol intoxication might decrease the applicability of these makers after a promising start between 2006 and 2010. Nevertheless, by the beginning of 2020, papers investigating ethanol biomarkers were still increasing. A considerable number of methods used liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS) techniques that require less sample preparation (e.g., protein precipitation extraction, dilution, filtration, and centrifugation). Although solid-phase extraction can be applied, only three applications were reported.

conclusionsMatrix effects can be a substantial challenge in analytical methods based on LC-MS because they directly affect the ionization of analytes. However, these problems can be avoided due to the high cutoff values used to identify positive results for these ethanol biomarkers, which are often above 0.1-1 mg/L, and using internal standards. Research on using tissue specimens is recommended as most of the reported results on this type of specimen were promising.

Indexed as

EthanolGlucuronatesForensic ToxicologySulfuric Acid Estersdiethyl sulfateEthanolethyl glucuronideGlucuronatesSulfuric Acid EstersBlood alcohol concentrationEthanolEthyl glucuronideEthyl sulfatePutrefactionUrine alcohol concentration

Identifiers

PMID36454482
OpenAlexW3185012976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.