SynthesisBMC pediatrics2025
Children's exposure to cocaine detected by hair analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic challenges in infant death associated with maternal cocaine abuse during pregnancy and lactation: a forensic case report and review of the literature.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundCocaine is a widespread drug of abuse to which children can also be exposed. The modes of exposure may vary depending on the age of the child. In addition to blood and urine analysis, hair analysis is currently used in some clinical contexts to investigate children's exposure to drugs of abuse, including cocaine. This systematic review aims to collect data on children's exposure to cocaine proven by hair analysis, and to understand whether the concentration of cocaine in the hair of children varies with age, potentially providing insights into the nature of their exposure.
methodsThis review was conducted in PubMed (including PubMed Central and Medline), Web of Science (Core Collection), and grey literature databases including Web of Science Preprint Citation Index, OpenGrey.eu, and Grey Literature Report, from inception until July 15, 2024. Cross-sectional studies, case series, and case reports where cocaine was detected in children's hair using mass spectrometry techniques, and concentrations reported, were included. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers.
resultsThe systematic review included 21 studies. Ten studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Cocaine median concentrations (ng/mg) at hair analysis were 1.17 [95% CI (0.19, 7.17)] in children under one year and 0.39 [95% CI (0.13, 1.13)] in children over one year. The heterogeneity tests indicated high between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 93.76% in studies including children under one year; I2 = 93.92% in studies including older children).
conclusionsThe finding of higher median concentration of cocaine in hair of infants under one year should be cautiously read, considering the characteristics of hair of young children and the influence of possible exposure occurring even or only in utero. The heterogeneity between the studies suggests differences in the study populations, and these may be reflected in terms of exposure levels. Given this heterogeneity and the potential for publication bias, further research involving larger populations and employing more rigorous methodologies is essential. The assessment of these cases cannot therefore be based on hair analysis alone, but must consider the analysis of other biological matrices, the history of the child and family, and information on the living environment.
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.