Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36910306›Full record

ArticleForensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2023

Validated method for the analysis of 22 illicit drugs and their metabolites via liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in illicit drug samples collected in Chicago, IL.

Heather D Whitehead, Kathleen L Hayes, James A Swartz, Elizabeth Prete, Lisa Robison-Taylor, Mary Ellen Mackesy-Amiti, Antonio D Jimenez, Marya Lieberman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. High-dose buprenorphine inductions in hospital settings.American journal of medicine open · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heather D WhiteheadDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame, IN, 46556, United States.
Kathleen L HayesDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame, IN, 46556, United States.
James A SwartzJane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois Chicago. 1040 W. Harrison Street MC (309) Chicago, IL 60607, United States.
Elizabeth PreteJane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois Chicago. 1040 W. Harrison Street MC (309) Chicago, IL 60607, United States.
Lisa Robison-TaylorJane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois Chicago. 1040 W. Harrison Street MC (309) Chicago, IL 60607, United States.
Mary Ellen Mackesy-AmitiSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago. 1603 W. Taylor St., Chicago IL 60612, United States.
Antonio D JimenezSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago. 1603 W. Taylor St., Chicago IL 60612, United States.
Marya LiebermanDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame, IN, 46556, United States.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Notre Dame · US

Funding

Strengthening Stakeholder Engagement in Human Research Protections.UL1TR002003 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI KARNIK, NIRANJAN SUBHASH, MERMELSTEIN, ROBIN J. · 2016 to 2024
$33.7M
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Project Management: Improving Submissions and Study Conduct in the Human Subjects Research Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002529 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MOE, SHARON M, WIEHE, SARAH ELIZABETH · 2018 to 2022
$27.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002003NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug checking services are being utilized worldwide to provide people who use drugs information on the composition and contents of their drugs as a tool for harm reduction and accidental overdose prevention. Existing drug checking services use a variety of techniques including immunoassay strips and spectroscopic techniques like FTIR and Raman. Few services utilize LC-MS based methods for primary or secondary analysis and few methods exist for direct analysis of illicit drugs. To address this, an LC-MS/MS method was developed for 22 illicit drugs and cutting agents using LC-MS/MS with application to 124 illicit drug samples that were collected from Chicago, IL. Samples were also analyzed using fentanyl and benzodiazepine immunoassay test strips. Fentanyl test strips gave a positive result for 86% of samples with only one sample showing a positive result on a benzodiazepine test strip. LC-MS/MS analysis of samples show that opioids were the most commonly quantified in 96% of samples, followed by stimulants at 12% and benzodiazepines at 1%. Fentanyl was measured in 91% of samples, co-occurring with heroin in 58% of opioid-containing samples. A comparison of the gold-standard LC-MS/MS results to fentanyl test strips shows a high level of accuracy for the fentanyl test strips, with just 5% of samples being classified as false negatives and no false positives. These results demonstrate the strengths and benefits of LC-MS/MS when incorporated as a secondary analysis tool for drug checking.

Indexed as

drug checkingfentanylillicit drugslateral flow immunoassayLC-MS/MS

Identifiers

PMID36910306
PMCPMC9997102
OpenAlexW4318473423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.