Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36767678›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Analysis of Cannabinoids in Biological Specimens: An Update.

Mónica Antunes, Mário Barroso, Eugenia Gallardo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mónica AntunesCICS-UBI-Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, Avenida Infante D. Henrique, 6201-506 Covilha, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-9719-6024
Mário BarrosoServiço de Química e Toxicologia Forenses, Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal e Ciências Forenses, Delegação do Sul, Rua Manuel Bento de Sousa 3, 1169-201 Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8848-2734
Eugenia GallardoCICS-UBI-Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, Avenida Infante D. Henrique, 6201-506 Covilha, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1802-8998
National Legal Medicine Institute · PTUniversity of Beira Interior · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cannabinoids are still the most consumed drugs of abuse worldwide. Despite being considered less harmful to human health, particularly if compared with opiates or cocaine, cannabis consumption has important medico-legal and public health consequences. For this reason, the development and optimization of sensitive analytical methods that allow the determination of these compounds in different biological specimens is important, involving relevant efforts from laboratories. This paper will discuss cannabis consumption; toxicokinetics, the most detected compounds in biological samples; and characteristics of the latter. In addition, a comprehensive review of extraction methods and analytical tools available for cannabinoid detection in selected biological specimens will be reviewed. Important issues such as pitfalls and cut-off values will be considered.

Indexed as

CannabinoidsCannabisCocaineHallucinogensHumansSubstance Abuse DetectionCannabinoidsCocaineHallucinogensanalysisbiological specimenscannabinoidstoxicology

Identifiers

PMID36767678
PMCPMC9915035
OpenAlexW4318475717

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.