ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2018
Methods to reduce false reporting of substance abstinence in clinical research.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opioid and cocaine use among primary care patients on buprenorphine-Self-report and urine drug tests.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2018Article
- Methods to reduce false reporting of substance abstinence in clinical research.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2018Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSubstance use may influence study results in human subjects research. This study aims to report the concordance between self-report and biochemical assessments of substance use and test the effect of methods to reduce false reports of abstinence in trauma-exposed women participating in a research study.
methodsIn this pilot study, substance use was assessed during telephone prescreening and via self-report and biochemical verification (i.e., urine toxicology and alcohol breathalyzer tests) at an in-person evaluation. Due to the high number of participants who tested positive for substances despite self-reporting abstinence during prescreening, study procedures were modified to disincentivize false self-reports of substance use two thirds of the way through recruitment. New potential participants were explicitly informed during prescreening and informed consent that a positive drug or alcohol test during screening would result in exclusion from the study and withholding of payment.
resultsPrior to modifying study methods, 20% of participants who had reported abstinence during the telephone prescreen had a positive substance use test at the in-person visit. Modifying study procedures resulted in an 81% decrease in positive substance use assessments.
conclusionsAdoption of this methodology may decrease inadvertent confounding of clinical research outcomes by undetected and/or misreported substance use.
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.