ArticleForensic toxicology2025
Preparation of highly concentrated extracts from large volume of urine as the first step in detecting trace amounts of hypnotics in urine collected in drug-facilitated crime cases.
Article in Forensic toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDetecting hypnotics in victim urine samples collected several days after drug-facilitated crime (DFC) is challenging because most of the drugs have already been excreted. In this study, a sample preparation method was developed for extracting trace amounts of hypnotics using most of the urine excreted at one sampling time (100 mL), and large amounts of matrices were efficiently removed.
methodsEtizolam, midazolam, ramelteon, and their metabolites were used as the target compounds. As the first step in decreasing the sample volume, solid-phase extraction using various sorbents was examined. The effects of additional clean-up columns (alumina, graphite, anion exchanger, etc.) on the removal of urine matrices were also examined. The pretreatment of 0.1-mL urine using a simple extraction column, specialized for small-scale urinalysis (Isolute Hydro DME +), was used as the reference method. The feasibility of drug detection in 100-mL urine was evaluated by comparison with a reference method.
resultsAll analytes in 100-mL urine were most effectively adsorbed on a sorbent with octadecyl-bonded polymer and eluted with less than 2 mL of acetonitrile. A multilayer clean-up column consisting of alumina, octadecyl-bonded silica, and anion exchangers was effective in removing the matrices. α-Hydroxymidazolam was detected in 100 mL of urine that was collected 5 days after midazolam administration, but was undetected using the reference method.
conclusionsThis preparation method for 100-mL urine is useful as the first extraction step in detecting trace amounts of hypnotics in victim urine collected late after DFC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40223031What 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.