Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24188398›Full record

ArticleJournal of negative results in biomedicine2013

The methodological quality of three foundational law enforcement Drug Influence Evaluation validation studies.

Greg Kane

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of negative results in biomedicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Greg Kane10785 East Crestline Place, Englewood CO 80111, USA. GregKaneMD@hotmail.com.
Englewood Hospital and Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE) is a formal assessment of an impaired driving suspect, performed by a trained law enforcement officer who uses circumstantial facts, questioning, searching, and a physical exam to form an unstandardized opinion as to whether a suspect's driving was impaired by drugs. This paper first identifies the scientific studies commonly cited in American criminal trials as evidence of DIE accuracy, and second, uses the QUADAS tool to investigate whether the methodologies used by these studies allow them to correctly quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the DIEs currently administered by US law enforcement.

resultsThree studies were selected for analysis. For each study, the QUADAS tool identified biases that distorted reported accuracies. The studies were subject to spectrum bias, selection bias, misclassification bias, verification bias, differential verification bias, incorporation bias, and review bias. The studies quantified DIE performance with prevalence-dependent accuracy statistics that are internally but not externally valid.

conclusionThe accuracies reported by these studies do not quantify the accuracy of the DIE process now used by US law enforcement. These studies do not validate current DIE practice.

Indexed as

BiasDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDisease ProgressionHumansLaw EnforcementPharmaceutical PreparationsQuality Assurance, Health CareReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID24188398
PMCPMC3828623
OpenAlexW2146047964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.