↓ Skip to main content

2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]ethanamine (25I-NBOMe): Clinical Case with Unique Confirmatory Testing

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Toxicology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]ethanamine (25I-NBOMe): Clinical Case with Unique Confirmatory Testing
Published in
Journal of Medical Toxicology, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s13181-013-0314-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel J. Stellpflug, Samantha E. Kealey, Cullen B. Hegarty, Gregory C. Janis

Abstract

2C designer drugs have been in use since the 1970s, but new drugs continue to develop from substitutions to the base phenethylamine structure. This creates new clinical profiles and difficulty with laboratory confirmation. 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]ethanamine (25I-NBOMe) is a relatively new 2C drug that is more potent than structural 2C analogs; exposure reports are rare. Testing for 2C drugs is developing; specific testing for new analogs such as 25I-NBOMe is a challenge. These drugs do not reliably trigger a positive result on rapid drug immunoassays. Additionally, most facilities with confirmatory testing capabilities will not identify 25I-NBOMe; methods for detecting 25I-NBOMe in biological samples have not been clearly described nor have optimal metabolic targets for detecting 25I-NBOMe ingestion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 59 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 17%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 16 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 11%
Psychology 4 6%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 9 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,292,441
of 24,739,153 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#237
of 702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,411
of 202,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,739,153 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.