ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
Insights from a 6-year hair drug analysis compendium in drug-facilitated sexual assault cases.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) may involve a diverse array of substances, including illicit drugs, prescription medications, and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals. Hair analysis has emerged as a valuable forensic tool, offering an extended window of detection spanning several months. However, interpreting drug concentrations in hair can be challenging in forensic cases, as there are still substantial disparities in drug concentration findings across studies, or even no data available in the literature. This compendium seeks to contribute to the understanding and interpretation of forensic cases involving hair analysis. This study included hair analysis results upon prosecutor request over 6 years in Grenoble Forensic Laboratory from 2019 to 2024. Segmental hair analysis was performed using liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) on Sciex® 5500QT and Waters® TQ-XS mass spectrometers, following Society of Hair Testing guidelines. Screened substances included drugs of abuse, benzodiazepines, sedative medications, and gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), depending on the case, following French Society of Analytical Toxicology guidelines. Hair proficiency quality testing ensured reproducible results. In this compendium, 22 authentic DFSA cases are described with hair analysis. The cohort predominantly involved female victims (95%) aged 13-47 years. Hair analysis was positive in nine cases (41%), revealing the presence of at least one psychoactive substance. Substances identified were alimemazine, alprazolam, bromazepam, cetirizine, clozapine, codeine, cyamemazine, hydroxyzine, oxazepam, zolpidem, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). The chemical profile observed primarily included sedating and amnesic pharmaceuticals, but not only. This compendium adds valuable data in the literature for better hair drug concentration interpretation in forensic cases.
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.