| Title |
Comprehensive review of the detection methods for synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Forensic Toxicology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11419-015-0270-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Akira Namera, Maho Kawamura, Akihiro Nakamoto, Takeshi Saito, Masataka Nagao |
| Abstract |
A number of N-alkyl indole or indazole-3-carbonyl analogs, with modified chemical structures, are distributed throughout the world as synthetic cannabinoids. Like synthetic cannabinoids, cathinone analogs are also abused and cause serious problems worldwide. Acute deaths caused by overdoses of these drugs have been reported. Various analytical methods that can cope with the rapid changes in chemical structures are required for routine analysis and screening of these drugs in seized and biological materials for forensic and clinical purposes. Although many chromatographic methods to analyze each drug have been published, there are only a few articles summarizing these analytical methods. This review presents the various colorimetric detections, immunochemical assays, gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric methods, and liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometric methods proposed for the analysis of synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 20% |
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Norway | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Portugal | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 257 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 58 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 14% |
| Researcher | 29 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 42 | 16% |
| Unknown | 51 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 102 | 39% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 17 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 7% |
| Unknown | 70 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 August 2015.
All research outputs
#4,340,616
of 25,320,147 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Toxicology
#43
of 407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,703
of 265,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Toxicology
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,320,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 265,384 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.