Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37553490›Full record

ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024

Post-mortem toxicological analysis of cocaine: main biological samples and analytical methods.

Luiza Campos Filomeno Dalsasso, Camila Marchioni

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Luiza Campos Filomeno DalsassoPharmacy, Federal University of Santa Catarina, St. Delfino Conti S/N, Florianopolis, SC, 88040-370, Brazil.
Camila MarchioniDepartment of Pathology, Federal University of Santa Catarina, St. Delfino Conti S/N, Florianopolis, SC, 88040-370, Brazil. cmarchioni3@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2482-914X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review intends to identify the most used analytical methods and biological samples in the post-mortem forensic toxicological analysis of cocaine and its metabolites. A scoping review was performed based on the question "What are the analytical methods and types of biological samples most frequently used to identify and quantify cocaine in post-mortem forensic toxicology?" The studies were selected from five databases and, after exclusions, the data were tabulated, analyzed, and reported. Twenty-one articles published between 2012 and 2022 were filtered from five different databases to be studied. The collected data indicate that the most used biological samples were blood and hair. The most used sample preparation technique was solid phase extraction, while the most mentioned chromatography method was liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. This review presents and discusses the state of the art regarding methods for the detection sensitivity spectrum, why limits of quantification are so important for these methods, and what are the most suitable biological samples to be utilized in each case. Cocaine and metabolites are important in forensic toxicologic post-mortem analysis. However, there is little concern in the development of miniaturized and automated sample preparation in this field. Besides, there is not enough understanding of post-mortem redistribution, tolerance, drug-drug interactions, and pre-existing medical conditions.

Indexed as

CocaineForensic ToxicologyHairMass SpectrometrySolid Phase ExtractionChromatography, LiquidHair AnalysisHumansNarcoticsPostmortem ChangesSubstance Abuse DetectionCocaineNarcoticsAutopsyChromatographyCocainePost-mortem

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.