Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40783738›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2025

Evaluation of nitazene immunoassay test strips for rapid in-situ detection of nitazene and nitazene analogs in illicit drug samples.

Victoria Marland, Lorna Nisbet, Niamh Nic Daéid

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Victoria MarlandLeverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science, School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. vmarland001@dundee.ac.uk.
Lorna NisbetLeverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science, School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Niamh Nic DaéidLeverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science, School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

Funding

Scottish Prison Service Procurement Reference 01865The Leverhulme Trust RC-2015-011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe detection of nitazene compounds in the United Kingdom has raised concerns among healthcare professionals, public health authorities, and law enforcement due to the increased risk of fatal overdose, particularly among opioid users. In response, nitazene testing strips have been distributed to help users identify these substances in drugs they may consume. However, to date, limited testing has been conducted on the effectiveness of these strips.

methodsThis study assesses the sensitivity and selectivity of a widely distributed nitazene immunoassay drug testing strip. The limit of detection and selectivity was examined for 36 nitazene analogs and 93 other drugs and cutting agents commonly encountered in illicit samples. The effectiveness of the test strips for the detection of metonitazene in the presence of other drugs was examined using a series of concentrations in solution in combination with other drugs. Testing of the strips was also carried out using authentic seized heroin samples.

resultsThe strips detected 28 out of 36 nitazene compounds (78%) with detection limits ranging from 250 ng/mL to 100 µg/mL. The strips did not provide positive results for 93 other drugs and cutting agents at a concentration of 100 µg/mL. However, false positives were observed when testing seized heroin samples, caused by caffeine concentrations over 300 µg/mL. False negatives were also seen for eight nitazene compounds.

conclusionCaution should be exercised when deploying these nitazene test strips as frontline presumptive tests in both criminal justice and public health contexts due to the observed false negative and false positive results. While the strips successfully detected a majority of nitazene compounds, their inability to identify certain analogs poses a risk of not detecting the presence of these potent opioids in the drug supply. Additionally, the occurrence of false positives, due to the presence of caffeine-a common adulterant in illicit substances-raises concerns about their suitability for use as a harm reduction method.

Indexed as

Illicit DrugsReagent StripsSubstance Abuse DetectionHumansImmunoassayLimit of DetectionSensitivity and SpecificityIllicit DrugsReagent StripsDrug checkingHarm reductionImmunoassay test stripsNitazeneNovel synthetic opioids

Identifiers

PMID40783738
PMCPMC12335075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.