Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 215

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Case series of individuals with analytically confirmed acute mephedrone toxicity

Wood, David M., Davies, Susannah, Greene, Shaun L., Button, Jenny, Holt, David W., Ramsey, John, Dargan, Paul I.·2010·Clinical Toxicology

Abstract

CONTEXT: Previous reports of acute toxicity/harm associated with mephedrone use have been based on self-reported mephedrone use; toxicological screening has not been undertaken in these cases to determine whether mephedrone has been used. OBJECTIVE: To report the first case series of analytically confirmed mephedrone-related acute toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum samples were collected from individuals presenting to an emergency department (ED) with acute toxicity related to self-reported mephedrone use. Toxicological analysis, by gas-chromatography coupled with mass-spectrometry and liquid chromatography with tandem mass-spectrometry was performed to qualitatively confirm mephedrone use. Symptoms/signs of acute mephedrone toxicity and basic physiological parameters were extracted from the routine ED records. RESULTS: Acute mephedrone-related toxicity was analytically confirmed in seven male patients; the mean ± SD age was 24.6 ± 6.5 years (range 16-36 years). Agitation (four patients) was the most common symptom/sign reported; other common symptoms/signs included: palpitations (two patients); chest pain (two patients); self-limiting pre-hospital seizures (one patient) and headaches (one patient). The mean heart rate was 109.1 ± 21.8 (range 80-140) beats per minute; one patient had a "severe" tachycardia (heart rate of ≥ 140 bpm). The mean systolic blood pressure was 153.0 ± 39.6 (range 110-210) mmHg; three patients had clinically significant hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 mmHg). DISCUSSION: These analytically confirmed acute mephedrone toxicity presentations had clinical features of toxicity consistent with an acute sympathomimetic toxidrome (e.g. hypertension, tachycardia and agitation). These findings are similar to the pattern of toxicity seen with other sympathomimetic recreational drugs such as 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and cocaine. CONCLUSION: The process for determining whether a novel psychoactive substance should be controlled often relies on demonstrated/proven acute harm associated with its use. It is important that clinical toxicologists undertake appropriate biological sampling and toxicological analyses in suspected cases of "novel psychoactive drug" toxicity. This will ensure that both clinicians and legislative authorities are informed of the confirmed pattern of toxicity associated with these drugs.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/15563650.2010.531021

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 215

Metadata

Authors
Wood, D. M., Davies, S., Greene, S. L., Button, J., Holt, D. W., Ramsey, J., & Dargan, P. I.
Venue
Clinical Toxicology
Published
2010-11
Volume
48
Issue
9
Pages
924-927
ISSN
  • 0009-9309 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3650
  • 1556-9519
OpenAlex
W2097791185
Cited by
215
References
0
FWCI
27.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Case series of individuals with analytically confirmed acute mephedrone toxicity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/15563650.2010.531021
The paper
Wood, D. M., Davies, S., Greene, S. L., Button, J., Holt, D. W., Ramsey, J., & Dargan, P. I. (2010). Case series of individuals with analytically confirmed acute mephedrone toxicity. Clinical Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.3109/15563650.2010.531021

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.