ArticleHeliyon2024
Concentrations of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in oral fluid at different time points after use: An individual participant meta-analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Smartphone-integrated lateral flow assay for robust detection of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2026Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations in oral fluid (OF) at different time points after cannabis administration and factors related to these concentrations have not been previously described in a meta-analysis. This information is critical for better understanding of these tests for detection of prior cannabis use and cannabis impairment. Objectives: 1: To describe the summary statistics of THC concentrations at different time points after cannabis administration. Methods: A meta-analysis of studies from two databases (PubMed and Scopus) was conducted. Our inclusion criteria included published empirical articles that administered natural cannabis to subjects in a controlled setting, with OF drug tests showing the exact THC concentrations in OF for each subject (i.e., raw data) for at least two time points after cannabis administration using confirmatory methods. Seven studies of tests with published raw data for OF THC after cannabis administration met these criteria (n observations = 1157). Results: Summary statistics showed OF THC concentrations by time after use were highly dispersed at every time point, positively skewed, and declined over time. Many positive OF THC concentrations were found after 24-h in one study, but most studies did not conduct observations past 24 h. In a multivariate analysis, we found that increased dose, increased frequency of cannabis use, and inhaled (versus ingested) cannabis were statistically related to higher OF THC concentrations. OF collection with the intercept DOA device was significantly higher than expectorant (i.e. saliva) and being male (versus female) were only significant in a bivariate analysis. Too little data existed to reliably analyze the possible influence of other variables of age, race and body mass index (BMI) on OF THC concentrations. Discussion: False negatives exist when the tests are used to detect prior use. OF test results are related to confounders of frequency of cannabis use and inhaled (versus ingested) cannabis. OF tests can produce positives at a cut-off 1.0 ng/mL well beyond 24 h. The tests are not valid to detect cannabis impairment. More information is needed on the influence of potential confounders for OF concentrations. We do not have a good idea of the degree to which the subjects in these studies are representative of persons who use cannabis. Overall, more research is needed for these tests to be used in workplace settings.
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.