ArticleThe Clinical journal of pain2019
Clinician Response to Aberrant Urine Drug Test Results of Patients Prescribed Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain.
Article in The Clinical journal of pain, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial to Decrease Prescription Opioid Misuse: Improving the Safety of Opioid Therapy (ISOT).Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Trial
- An acceptance and commitment therapy-based intervention for opioid use disorder risk in individuals with cancer: A treatment development study.Journal of contextual behavioral science · 2023Article
- Provider Misinterpretation, Documentation, and Follow-Up of Definitive Urine Drug Testing Results.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Priming primary care providers to engage in evidence-based discussions about cannabis with patients.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveUrine drug testing (UDT) is recommended for patients who are prescribed opioid medications, but little is known about the various strategies clinicians use to respond to aberrant UDT results. We sought to examine changes in opioid prescribing and implementation of other risk reduction activities following an aberrant UDT.
methodsIn a national cohort of Veterans Affairs patients with new initiations of opioid therapy through 2013, we identified a random sample of 100 patients who had aberrant positive UDTs (results positive for nonprescribed/illicit substance), 100 who had aberrant negative UDTs (results negative for prescribed opioid), and 100 who had expected UDT results. We examined medical record data for opioid prescribing changes and risk reduction strategies in the 12 months following UDT.
resultsFollowing an aberrant UDT, 17.5% of clinicians documented planning to discontinue or change the opioid dose and 52.5% initiated another strategy to reduce opioid-related risk. In multivariate analyses, variables associated with a planned change in opioid prescription status were having an aberrant positive UDT (odds ratio [OR], 30.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.92-160.10) and higher prescription opioid dose (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02). The only variable associated with implementation of other risk reduction activities was having an aberrant positive UDT (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55). DISCUSSION: The majority of clinicians enacted some type of opioid prescribing or other change to reduce risk following an aberrant UDT, and the action depended on whether the result was an aberrant positive or aberrant negative UDT. Experimental studies are needed to develop and test strategies for managing aberrant UDT results.
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.