You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 47 No. 3, March 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (14)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Second Thoughts on 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) Neurotoxicity

Charles Grob, MD; Gary Bravo, MD; Roger Walsh, MD, PhD
University of California, Irvine Medical Center Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior 101 City Dr S Rte 88 Orange, CA 92668

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1990;47(3):288.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Recent attention has been drawn to the purported neurotoxic dangers associated with 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Price et al1 have attempted to assess possible serotonergic neurotransmitter damage by contrasting serum prolactin response to the challenge with intravenous L-tryptophan in subjects with a history of MDMA use vs control subjects. Their primary finding was a blunted rise in the expected serum prolactin level in MDMA users, but not to a statistically significant degree. The importance of this finding appears to be questionable and perhaps misleading. Even if the data had yielded a statistically significant result, would such a correlation necessarily imply causation?

A methodological limitation to the study would appear to be that subjects were not adequately screened on selection to exclude those who were using other psychotropic drugs. There is no mention that toxicology screens were ever performed. In fact, three subjects (33%) admitted to marijuana use . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1990 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.