ArticleForensic toxicology2023
Cannabidiol in urine is not a proof of CBD consumption-lesson learned from urine sample analysis in routine caseworks.
Article in Forensic toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpol review of forensic toxicology, 2023-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Cannabigerol (CBG) signal enhancement in its analysis by gas chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry.Forensic toxicology · 2024Article
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
purposeCannabidiol (CBD) has been gaining popularity in recent years. Knowing that CBD products can contain more tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) than expected, interpretation of cannabinoids concentration in urine can be tricky, especially when low amounts of THC and CBD are found. Moreover, interpretation can also be difficult due to interindividual variation in pharmacokinetics. The objective of this work was to take a critical look at the data from our daily practice as a toxicology laboratory.
methodsWe have collected results obtained in a first batch of 1074 urine samples submitted to cannabinoids analysis, and results of cannabinoids content of a second batch of 719 seized materials.
resultsCBD was detected in 163 urine specimens (15%). Its concentration was higher than the limit of quantification of 5 ng/mL in 108 samples only (10% of the sampling population). Most of CBD-positive samples were associated with a high THC-COOH concentration (> 500 ng/mL in 63.8% of CBD-positive samples) suggesting only a few CBD consumers in our population. Cannabinoids composition of seized plant materials (drug type at first glance) revealed CBD in 110 of them (15% of the sampling population), with a concentration mostly below 1%. All of the resin samples were CBD positive, and contained more THC compared to flowers.
conclusionsWe can conclude that urine samples from drug-type cannabis users contained a low amount of CBD, what was not described previously. These findings are useful for the interpretation of cannabinoids results in daily practice.
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.