Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28159441›Full record

ArticleJournal of substance abuse treatment2017

Identifying substance misuse in primary care: TAPS Tool compared to the WHO ASSIST.

R P Schwartz, J McNeely, L T Wu, G Sharma, A Wahle, C Cushing, C D Nordeck, A Sharma, K E O'Grady, J Gryczynski and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Application of Digital Medicine in Addiction.Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (science) · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

R P SchwartzFriends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: Rschwartz@friendsresearch.org.
J McNeelyNew York University School of Medicine, Department of Population Health, 550 First Avenue, VZ30 6th floor, New York, NY 10016, USA. Electronic address: Jennifer.McNeely@nyumc.org.
L T WuDuke University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: Litzy.wu@duke.edu.
G SharmaEmmes Corporation, 401 North Washington Street, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. Electronic address: gsharma@emmes.com.
A WahleEmmes Corporation, 401 North Washington Street, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
C CushingNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
C D NordeckFriends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
A SharmaFriends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
K E O'GradyUniversity of Maryland, College Park, Department of Psychology, 4094 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20742, USA.
J GryczynskiFriends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
S G MitchellFriends Research Institute, 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
R L AliUniversity of Adelaide, Department of Pharmacology, Frome Road, Level 5, Medical School North Bldg, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: robert.ali@adelaide.edu.au.
J MarsdenAddictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, Addiction Sciences Building, 4 Windsor Walk, Denmark Hill, SE5 8BB London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: john.marsden@kcl.ac.uk.
G A SubramaniamNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, USA. Electronic address: subramaniamga@mail.nih.gov.
Friends Research Institute · USEmmes (United States) · USNational Institute on Drug Abuse · USDuke University · USKing's College London · GBNew York University · USThe University of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Maryland, College Park · US

Funding

Project-003UG1DA013035 · NIDA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Aimee N Campbell, Jennifer McNeely · 2015 to 2026
$130.3M
Southern Consortium Node of the Clinical Trials NetworkU10DA013727 · NIDA · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T. · 2000 to 2015
$34.4M
CLINICAL TRIALS NETWORK MID-ATLANTIC COLLABORATIVE GROUPU10DA013034 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWARTZ, ROBERT P, STITZER, MAXINE L · 1999 to 2015
$25.2M
Clinical Trials Network: Mid-Atlantic Integrated Care Research CollaborativeUG1DA013034 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWARTZ, ROBERT P, STITZER, MAXINE L · 2015 to 2019
$11.0M
Project-003UG1DA040317 · NIDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WU, LI-TZY · 2015 to 2019
$9.0M
NIDA NIH HHS U10 DA013034NIDA NIH HHS U10 DA013727NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA013034NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA013035NIDA NIH HHS UG1 DA040317
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need for screening and brief assessment instruments to identify primary care patients with substance use problems. This study's aim was to examine the performance of a two-step screening and brief assessment instrument, the TAPS Tool, compared to the WHO ASSIST.

methodsTwo thousand adult primary care patients recruited from five primary care clinics in four Eastern US states completed the TAPS Tool followed by the ASSIST. The ability of the TAPS Tool to identify moderate- and high-risk use scores on the ASSIST was examined using sensitivity and specificity analyses.

resultsThe interviewer and self-administered computer tablet versions of the TAPS Tool generated similar results. The interviewer-administered version (at cut-off of 2), had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for high-risk tobacco (0.90 and 0.77) and alcohol (0.87 and 0.80) use. For illicit drugs, sensitivities were >0.82 and specificities >0.92. The TAPS (at a cut-off of 1) had good sensitivity and specificity for moderate-risk tobacco use (0.83 and 0.97) and alcohol (0.83 and 0.74). Among illicit drugs, sensitivity was acceptable for moderate-risk of marijuana (0.71), while it was low for all other illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription medications. Specificities were 0.97 or higher for all illicit drugs and prescription medications.

conclusionsThe TAPS Tool identified adult primary care patients with high-risk ASSIST scores for all substances as well moderate-risk users of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, although it did not perform well in identifying patients with moderate-risk use of other drugs or non-medical use of prescription medications. The advantages of the TAPS Tool over the ASSIST are its more limited number of items and focus solely on substance use in the past 3months.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAlcoholismFemaleHumansInterview, PsychologicalMaleMarijuana SmokingMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrescription Drug MisusePrimary Health CareReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySubstance Abuse DetectionSubstance-Related DisordersASSISTPrimary careSubstance abuse assessmentSubstance abuse screening

Identifiers

PMID28159441
PMCPMC5377907
OpenAlexW2585067710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.