Responding to reports of nitazene toxicity in Australia.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Novel 2-Benzylbenzimidazole Opioids: Emerging Drugs of Abuse and Pharmacological Considerations with Nitazene Analogs.Current pain and headache reports · 2026
   Review
2. Analytically Confirmed Opioid Detections From the Emerging Drugs Network of Australia.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026
   Article
3. Post-Mortem Identification and Toxicological Findings of Fluetonitazepyne and Isotonitazepyne.Drug testing and analysis · 2025
   Article
4. Co-design of the Australian Prompt Response Network for a public-health focused intersectoral approach to information sharing on emerging drugs of concern.Frontiers in public health · 2025
   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

6 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as