Comparison of cannabinoids in hair with self-reported cannabis consumption in heavy, light and non-cannabis users
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Biological tests of drug use can be used to inform clinical and legal decisions and hold potential to provide evidence for epidemiological studies where self-reported behaviour may be unavailable or unreliable. We test whether hair can be considered as a reliable marker of cannabis exposure. METHODS: Hair samples were collected from 136 subjects who were self-reported heavy, light or non-users of cannabis and tested using GC-MS/MS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for five cannabinoids (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], THC-OH, THC-COOH, cannabinol and cannabidiol). Samples also were segmented in 1 cm sections representing 1 month exposure and the correlation between amount of cannabinoid detected and self-reported cannabis consumption tested. RESULTS: All five cannabinoids were detected. Seventy-seven percent of heavy users, 39% of light users and 0% of non-users tested positive for THC. The sensitivity of detection of THC was 0.77 (0.56-0.91) comparing heavy cannabis smokers with light and non-users, whereas the sensitivity of other cannabinoids generally was considerably lower. The positive and negative predictive value of detection of THC were 0.57 (0.39-0.74) and 0.91 (0.82-0.97), respectively. A correlation of 0.52 (P < 0.001) was observed between self-reported monthly cannabis use and THC. DISCUSSION: Hair analysis can be used as a qualitative indicator of heavy (daily or near daily) cannabis consumption within the past 3 months. However, this approach is unable to reliably detect light cannabis consumption or determine the quantity of cannabis used by the individual. [Taylor M, Lees R, Henderson G, Lingford-Hughes A, Macleod J, Sullivan J, Hickman M. Comparison of cannabinoids in hair with self-reported cannabis consumption in heavy, light and non-cannabis users. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;36:220-226].
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Toxicology screening is less reliable for detecting mild cannabis use or frequency of use than for measuring heavy cannabis use.
“Although toxicology screening is a reliable way to measure heavy Cannabis use, it is less reliable for detecting mild use or frequency of use (Taylor et al., 2017).”
From Short- and long-term effects of digital prevention and treatment interventions for cannabis use reduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Taylor et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
State of the art in hair analysis for detection of drug and alcohol abuse
Pragst, F., & Balı́ková, M. (2006) · Clinica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.cca.2006.02.019 · Cited by 1,058 · see citing works
Potential problems with the interpretation of hair analysis results
Wennig, R. (2000) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/s0379-0738(99)00146-2 · Cited by 677 · see citing works
Anatomy and physiology of hair
Harkey, M. R. (1993) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/0379-0738(93)90255-9 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Morgan, C. J. A., Schafer, G., Freeman, T. P., & Curran, H. V. (2010) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077503 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Review of Biologic Matrices (Urine, Blood, Hair) as Indicators of Recent or Ongoing Cannabis Use
Mußhoff, F., & Madea, B. (2006) · Therapeutic Drug Monitoring · doi:10.1097/01.ftd.0000197091.07807.22 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
Boumba, V. A., Ziavrou, K. S., & Vougiouklakis, T. (2006) · International Journal of Toxicology · doi:10.1080/10915810600683028 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
An overview of the use of urine, hair, sweat and saliva to detect drug use
Dolan, K. A., Rouen, D., & Kimber, J. (2004) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1080/09595230410001704208 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Wolff, K., Farrell, M., Marsden, J., Monteiro, M. G., Ali, R. L., Welch, S., & Strang, J. (1999) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.94912792.x · Cited by 182 · see citing works
New trends in hair analysis and scientific demands on validation and technical notes
Mußhoff, F., & Madea, B. (2006) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.024 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Cannabinoid concentrations in hair from documented cannabis users
Huestis, M. A., Gustafson, R. A., Moolchan, E. T., Barnes, A. J., Bourland, J. A., Sweeney, S. A., Hayes, E. F., Carpenter, P. M., & Smith, M. L. (2006) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.08.005 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Cannabinoids in hair: strategy to prove marijuana/hashish consumption
Uhl, M., & Sachs, H. (2004) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.04.029 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Lowe, R. H., Abraham, T. T., Darwin, W. D., Herning, R. I., Cadet, J. L., & Huestis, M. A. (2009) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.05.027 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Results of hair analyses for drugs of abuse and comparison with self-reports and urine tests
Mußhoff, F., Driever, F., Lachenmeier, K., et al. (2005) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.07.024 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Johansson, E., Halldin, M. M., Agurell, S., Hollister, L. E., & Gillespie, H. K. (1989) · European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00679783 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Deposition of cannabinoids in hair after long-term use of cannabis
Skopp, G., Strohbeck-Kuehner, P., Mann, K. F., & Hermann, D. (2006) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.09.003 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Heron, J., Barker, E. D., Joinson, C. J., Lewis, G., Hickman, M., Munafo, M. R., & Macleod, J. (2013) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.12268 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Self-citationComparison of Ethyl Glucuronide in Hair with Self-Reported Alcohol Consumption
Lees, R., Kingston, R., Williams, T. A., et al. (2012) · Alcohol and Alcoholism · doi:10.1093/alcalc/ags010 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Self-citationREPORTING BIAS AND SELF‐REPORTED DRUG USE
Macleod, J., Hickman, M., & Smith, G. D. (2005) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01099.x · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Self-citationThieme, D., Sachs, H., & Uhl, M. (2013) · Drug Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1002/dta.1565 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boumparis, N., Loheide-Niesmann, L., Blankers, M., Ebert, D. D., Korf, D., Schaub, M. P., Spijkerman, R., Tait, R. J., & Riper, H. (2019) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.03.016 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
- Authors
- Taylor, M., Lees, R., Henderson, G., Lingford‐Hughes, A., Macleod, J., Sullivan, J., & Hickman, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Centre for Neuropsychopharmacology Division of Brain Sciences Department of Medicine Imperial College London London UK
- Alere Toxicology PLc, Oxford UK
- Corresponding author
- Taylor, Michelle
- Venue
- Drug and Alcohol Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-06-14
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 220-226
- ISSN
- 0959-5236 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-3362
- PMC
- PMC5396143
- OpenAlex
- W2338128759
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 6.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Drug and Alcohol Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- University of Bristol
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Historical and Scientific Studies
- Keywords
- cannabis use, hair analysis, cannabinoids, tetrahydrocannabinol, THC-COOH, cannabinol, cannabidiol, sensitivity and specificity, heavy cannabis users
- MeSH terms
- Cannabinoids, Marijuana Abuse, Hair, Humans, Marijuana Smoking, Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, Substance Abuse Detection, Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Self Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
