ArticleBMC research notes2018
Repeat participation in annual cross-sectional surveys of drug users and its implications for analysis.
Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changing age profile and incidence of injecting drug use initiation among people in Australia who inject drugs: evidence from two national repeated cross-sectional studies.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Disruption to Australian heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy markets with the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions.The International journal on drug policy · 2023Article
- Changes in illicit drug use and markets with the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions: findings from the Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System, 2016-20.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to establish the extent of repeat participation in a large annual cross-sectional survey of people who inject drugs and assess its implications for analysis.
resultsWe used "porn star names" (the name of each participant's first pet followed by the name of the first street in which they lived) to identify repeat participation in three Australian Illicit Drug Reporting System surveys. Over 2013-2015, 2468 porn star names (96.2%) appeared only once, 88 (3.4%) twice, and nine (0.4%) in all 3 years. We measured design effects, based on the between-cluster variability for selected estimates, of 1.01-1.07 for seven key variables. These values indicate that the complex sample is (e.g.) 7% less efficient in estimating prevalence of heroin use (ever) than a simple random sample, and 1% less efficient in estimating number of heroin overdoses (ever). Porn star names are a useful means of tracking research participants longitudinally while maintaining their anonymity. Repeat participation in the Australian Illicit Drug Reporting System is low (less than 5% per annum), meaning point-prevalence and effect estimation without correction for the lack of independence in observations is unlikely to seriously affect population inference.
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.