Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36498947›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Molecular Insights and Clinical Outcomes of Drugs of Abuse Adulteration: New Trends and New Psychoactive Substances.

Annagiulia Di Trana, Diletta Berardinelli, Eva Montanari, Paolo Berretta, Giuseppe Basile, Marilyn A Huestis, Francesco Paolo Busardò

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Annagiulia Di TranaDepartment of Excellence of Biomedical Science and Public Health, University "Politecnica delle Marche" of Ancona, Via Tronto 71, 60124 Ancona, Italy.
Diletta BerardinelliDepartment of Excellence of Biomedical Science and Public Health, University "Politecnica delle Marche" of Ancona, Via Tronto 71, 60124 Ancona, Italy.
Eva MontanariDepartment of Excellence of Biomedical Science and Public Health, University "Politecnica delle Marche" of Ancona, Via Tronto 71, 60124 Ancona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0044-1714
Paolo BerrettaNational Centre on Addiction and Doping, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1748-5628
Giuseppe BasileIRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, 20157 Milan, Italy.
Marilyn A HuestisInstitute of Emerging Health Professions, Thomas Jefferson University, 1020 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19144, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2137-4645
Francesco Paolo BusardòDepartment of Excellence of Biomedical Science and Public Health, University "Politecnica delle Marche" of Ancona, Via Tronto 71, 60124 Ancona, Italy.
Marche Polytechnic University · ITIstituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITIstituto Superiore di Sanità · ITThomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

Italian Department of Antidrug policies no number
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adulteration is a well-known practice of drug manufacturers at different stages of drug production. The intentional addition of active ingredients to adulterate the primary drug may enhance or mask pharmacological effects or may produce more potent drugs to increase the number of available doses and the dealer's profit. Adulterants found in different drugs change over time in response to different factors. A systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases and official international organizations' websites according to PRISMA guidelines was performed. A total of 724 studies were initially screened, with 145 articles from PubMed and 462 from Scopus excluded according to the criteria described in the Method Section. The remaining 117 records were further assessed for eligibility to exclude articles without sufficient data. Finally, 79 studies were classified as "non-biological" (

Indexed as

CocaineIllicit DrugsCentral Nervous System AgentsDrug ContaminationLevamisoleCentral Nervous System AgentsCocaineIllicit DrugsLevamisoleadulterantsdrugs of abuseintoxicationsnew psychoactive substancesseized drugstoxicology

Identifiers

PMID36498947
PMCPMC9739917
OpenAlexW4310249546

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.