| Title |
Bioanalytical procedures for determination of drugs of abuse in blood
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, April 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-007-1271-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Kraemer, Liane D. Paul |
| Abstract |
Determination of drugs of abuse in blood is of great importance in clinical and forensic toxicology. This review describes procedures for detection of the following drugs of abuse and their metabolites in whole blood, plasma or serum: Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, 11-hydroxy-Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, 11-nor-9-carboxy-Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, 11-nor-9-carboxy-Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol glucuronide, heroin, 6-monoacetylmorphine, morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide, morphine-3-glucuronide, codeine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, N-ethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, ecgonine methyl ester, cocaethylene, other cocaine metabolites or pyrolysis products (norcocaine, norcocaethylene, norbenzoylecgonine, m-hydroxycocaine, p-hydroxycocaine, m-hydroxybenzoylecgonine, p-hydroxybenzoylecgonine, ethyl ecgonine, ecgonine, anhydroecgonine methyl ester, anhydroecgonine ethyl ester, anhydroecgonine, noranhydroecgonine, N-hydroxynorcocaine, cocaine N-oxide, anhydroecgonine methyl ester N-oxide). Metabolites and degradation products which are recommended to be monitored for assessment in clinical or forensic toxicology are mentioned. Papers written in English between 2002 and the beginning of 2007 are reviewed. Analytical methods are assessed for their suitability in forensic toxicology, where special requirements have to be met. For many of the analytes sensitive immunological methods for screening are available. Screening and confirmation is mostly done by gas chromatography (GC)-mass spectrometry (MS) or liquid chromatography (LC)-MS(/MS) procedures. Basic information about the biosample assayed, internal standard, workup, GC or LC column and mobile phase, detection mode, and validation data for each procedure is summarized in two tables to facilitate the selection of a method suitable for a specific analytic problem. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 20% |
| Researcher | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 36 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 21 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,655,425
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#204
of 9,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,251
of 86,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#4
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,618 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 86,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.