ArticleIrish journal of medical science
Completeness and accuracy of the drug treatment reporting system in Dublin, Ireland.
Article in Irish journal of medical science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Drug Treatment Reporting System (NDTRS) is the Irish treated-drug misuse surveillance system.
aimTo measure completeness and accuracy of the NDTRS.
methodsCross-sectional survey of clinical records and matching NDTRS reporting forms of a random sample of 520 clients attending 4 Dublin treatment centres. Using clients' clinical records as the gold standard, system completeness (proportion of sample reported to the NDTRS) and accuracy of selected variables (proportion of reported clients' information on the NDTRS that matched clinical record information) were measured.
results452/520 (87%) selected records were retrieved. The NDTRS was only 61.1% (95% CI 56.5-65-5) complete; completeness differed across treatment centres (21.8%-85.6%, p < 0.0001) and was greater for new and returning clients than for continuing clients (81.7% versus 53.9% respectively, p < 0.0001). Problems were identified with the accuracy of some key variables.
conclusionsUrgent actions have been taken to improve the completeness and accuracy of the reporting system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17073248What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.