Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36454488›Full record

ReviewForensic toxicology2022

Alternative matrices in forensic toxicology: a critical review.

Eduardo Geraldo de Campos, Bruno Ruiz Brandão da Costa, Fabiana Spineti Dos Santos, Fernanda Monedeiro, Marcela Nogueira Rabelo Alves, Wilson José Ramos Santos Junior, Bruno Spinosa De Martinis

Abstract readReview
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 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interpol review of forensic toxicology, 2023-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Eduardo Geraldo de CamposFaculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. do Café s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-903, Brazil.
Bruno Ruiz Brandão da CostaFaculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. do Café s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-903, Brazil.
Fabiana Spineti Dos SantosFaculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-901, Brazil.
Fernanda MonedeiroFaculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-901, Brazil.
Marcela Nogueira Rabelo AlvesInstituto Master de Ensino Presidente Antônio Carlos - IMEPAC ARAGUARI, Av. Minas Gerais 1889, Araguari, MG 38444-128, Brazil.
Wilson José Ramos Santos JuniorFaculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. do Café s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-903, Brazil.
Bruno Spinosa De MartinisFaculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo 14040-901, Brazil. martinis@usp.br.ORCID 0000-0002-2702-5190

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use of alternative matrices in toxicological analyses has been on the rise in clinical and forensic settings. Specimens alternative to blood and urine are useful in providing additional information regarding drug exposure and analytical benefits. The goal of this paper is to present a critical review on the most recent literature regarding the application of six common alternative matrices, i.e., oral fluid, hair, sweat, meconium, breast milk and vitreous humor in forensic toxicology.

methodsThe recent literature have been searched and reviewed for the characteristics, advantages and limitations of oral fluid, hair, sweat, meconium, breast milk and vitreous humor and its applications in the analysis of traditional drugs of abuse and novel psychoactive substances (NPS).

resultsThis paper outlines the properties of six biological matrices that have been used in forensic analyses, as alternatives to whole blood and urine specimens. Each of this matrix has benefits in regards to sampling, extraction, detection window, typical drug levels and other aspects. However, theses matrices have also limitations such as limited incorporation of drugs (according to physical-chemical properties), impossibility to correlate the concentrations for effects, low levels of xenobiotics and ultimately the need for more sensitive analysis. For more traditional drugs of abuse (e.g., cocaine and amphetamines), there are already data available on the detection in alternative matrices. However, data on the determination of emerging drugs such as the NPS in alternative biological matrices are more limited.

conclusionsAlternative biological fluids are important specimens in forensic toxicology. These matrices have been increasingly reported over the years, and this dynamic will probably continue in the future, especially considering their inherent advantages and the possibility to be used when blood or urine are unavailable. However, one should be aware that these matrices have limitations and particular properties, and the findings obtained from the analysis of these specimens may vary according to the type of matrix. As a potential perspective in forensic toxicology, the topic of alternative matrices will be continuously explored, especially emphasizing NPS.

Indexed as

Body FluidsFemaleForensic MedicineForensic ToxicologyHairHumansMilk, HumanAlternative matricesBreast milkMeconiumNewly emerging alternative matricesNPSSweat

Identifiers

PMID36454488
PMCPMC9715501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.