ArticleForensic science international2026
Considering unintentional exposure when testing for cocaine use via oral fluid testing.
Article in Forensic science international, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research is needed to establish optimal cutoffs to determine cocaine use via oral fluid testing while considering the possibility of unintentional exposure. We compared detection of cocaine and its metabolites to self-reported use while considering other drug use to determine optimal cutoffs to determine intentional use. In this study, 1819 adults entering randomly selected nightclubs were surveyed about cocaine and other drug use and had their oral fluid analyzed using liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. We compared self-reported use to detected exposure. 13.6% of participants reported past 24-hour cocaine use, 43.7% tested positive for cocaine exposure (≥1 ng/mL), and 11.8% tested positive for at least one metabolite. 28.6% either tested positive for or reported past 24-hour use of other drugs, primarily ketamine. Among those testing positive for cocaine exposure (n = 794), only 29.1% reported past 24-hour use. Among positive cases, the optimal cocaine concentration cut-point for predicting self-report was ≥ 26 ng/mL. When focusing on the full sample and a subsample with data on past 48-hour reported use, optimal cut-points were ≥ 6 ng/mL and ≥ 5 ng/mL, respectively. However, detection of metabolites was the strongest predictor of self-reported use. Using self-report as the gold standard, metabolite detection most accurately classified reported use, over and above detection of cocaine or other drugs; however, relying solely on detection of metabolites or higher cocaine concentration thresholds often led to under-detection. In conclusion, relying on detection of metabolites or higher concentrations most accurately detects intentional use, but these lack sensitivity to detect a portion of use.
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.