ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Challenges in Drug Surveillance: Strengthening the Analysis of New Psychoactive Substances by Harmonizing Drug Checking Services in Proficiency Testing.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in synthetic cathinone detection in seized drug samples submitted to the U.S. DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System, 2010-2024.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2026Article
- Phase I Metabolism of Novel Phencyclidine Derivative 3-Cl-PCP: In Vitro Studies With Pooled Human Liver Microsomes and Investigation of a Post-Mortem Case.Drug testing and analysis · 2026Article
- Drug-Checking and Monitoring New Psychoactive Substances: Identification of the U-48800 Synthetic Opioid Using Mass Spectrometry, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, and Bioinformatic Tools.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Implementation of a community-based LC-UV drug checking service: promising preliminary findings on feasibility and validity.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug checking is a proven harm reduction strategy and provides real-time information on the market of new psychoactive substances (NPS). It combines chemical analysis of samples with direct engagement with people who use drugs (PWUD), giving the ability to increase preparedness and responsiveness towards NPS. Next to that, it supports rapid identification of potential unwitting consumption. However, NPS cause a toxicological battle for the researchers, as factors such as the unpredictability and quick shift of the market complicate the detection.
methodsTo evaluate challenges posed towards drug checking services, proficiency testing was set up to evaluate existing analytical techniques and investigate the capability to correctly identify circulating NPS. Twenty blind substances, covering the most common categories of substances, were analyzed according to the existing protocols of the existing drug checking services, including several analytical methods such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography with diode array detector (LC-DAD).
resultsThe proficiency test scores range from 80 to 97.5% accuracy. The most common issues and errors are mainly unidentified compounds, presumably due to no up-to-date libraries, and/ or confusion between structural isomers, such as 3- and 4-chloroethcathinone, or structural analogs, such as MIPLA (N-methyl-N-isopropyl lysergamide) and LSD (D-lysergic acid diethylamide).
conclusionsThe participating drug checking services have access to adequate analytical tools to provide feedback to drug users and provide up-to-date information on NPS.
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.