ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2010
Validity of suspected alcohol and drug violations in aviation employees.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Random drug and alcohol testing for preventing injury in workers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Drug violations and aviation accidents: findings from the US mandatory drug testing programs.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsIn the United States, transportation employees who are suspected of using alcohol and drugs are subject to reasonable-cause testing. This study aims to assess the validity of suspected alcohol and drug violations in aviation employees.
methodsUsing reasonable-cause testing and random testing data from the Federal Aviation Administration for the years 1995-2005, we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of suspected alcohol and drug violations. The true status of violations was based on testing results, with an alcohol violation being defined as a blood alcohol concentration of ≥0.04 mg/dl and a drug violation as a test positive for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, phencyclidine or opiates.
resultsDuring the 11-year study period, a total of 2284 alcohol tests and 2015 drug tests were performed under the reasonable-cause testing program. The PPV was 37.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 35.7-39.7%] for suspected alcohol violations and 12.6% (95% CI, 11.2-14.1%) for suspected drug violations. Random testing revealed an overall prevalence of 0.09% for alcohol violations and 0.6% for drug violations. The LR+ was 653.6 (95% CI, 581.7-734.3) for suspected alcohol violations and 22.5 (95% CI, 19.6-25.7) for suspected drug violations.
conclusionThe discriminative power of reasonable-cause testing suggests that, despite its limited positive predictive value, physical and behavioral observation represents an efficient screening method for detecting alcohol and drug violations. The limited positive predictive value of reasonable-cause testing in aviation employees is due in part to the very low prevalence of alcohol and drug violations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.