ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2011
Drug violations and aviation accidents: findings from the US mandatory drug testing programs.
Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Random drug and alcohol testing for preventing injury in workers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Policies and Toxicological Screenings for No Drug Addiction: An Example from the Civil Aviation Workforce.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Thermographic detection and quantification of THC in oral fluid at unprecedented low concentrations.Biomedical optics express · 2020Article
- The U.S. commercial air tour industry: a review of aviation safety concerns.Aviation, space, and environmental medicine · 2014Review
- Oral fluid/plasma cannabinoid ratios following controlled oral THC and smoked cannabis administration.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2013Article
- Current knowledge on cannabinoids in oral fluid.Drug testing and analysisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo assess the role of drug violations in aviation accidents.
designCase-control analysis.
settingCommercial aviation in the United States.
participantsAviation employees who were tested for drugs during 1995-2005 under the post-accident testing program (cases, n = 4977) or under the random testing program (controls, n = 1 129 922). MEASUREMENTS: Point prevalence of drug violations, odds ratio of accident involvement and attributable risk in the population. A drug violation was defined as a confirmed positive test for marijuana (≥50 ng/ml), cocaine (≥300 ng/ml), amphetamines (≥1000 ng/ml), opiates (≥2000 ng/ml) or phencyclidine (≥25 ng/ml).
findingsThe prevalence of drug violations was 0.64% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.65%] in random drug tests and 1.82% (95% CI: 1.47-2.24%) in post-accident tests. The odds of accident involvement for employees who tested positive for drugs was almost three times the odds for those who tested negative (odds ratio 2.90, 95% CI: 2.35-3.57), with an estimated attributable risk of 1.2%. Marijuana accounted for 67.3% of the illicit drugs detected. The proportion of illicit drugs represented by amphetamines increased progressively during the study period, from 3.4% in 1995 to 10.3% in 2005 (P < 0.0001).
conclusionsUse of illicit drugs by aviation employees is associated with a significantly increased risk of accident involvement. Due to the very low prevalence, drug violations contribute to only a small fraction of aviation accidents.
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.