ArticleJournal of substance abuse treatment2019
What happens to agreement over time? A longitudinal study of self-reported substance use compared to saliva toxicological testing among subsidized housing residents.
Article in Journal of substance abuse treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- High concordance between urine toxicology results and self-reported fentanyl use in Nevada and New Mexico.Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024Article
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
Abstract
The agreement between self-reported and toxicologically verified substance use provides important information about the validity of self-reported use. While some studies report aggregate agreement across follow-up points, only a few have examined the agreement at each time point separately. An overall rate of agreement across time may miss changes that occur as people progress through a research study. In this study, a sample of 644 adults (43.8% male, 32.6% White, 57.0% Black, 90.2% ages 36+) residing in subsidized housing was used to determine the agreement between self-reported use and saliva toxicological testing for marijuana, cocaine, PCP, amphetamine, and methamphetamine at three different time points. Agreement between saliva toxicological testing and self-report ranged between 84.2% and 94.3% for different substances over time. Higher rates of agreement were found for cocaine than had been reported by previous studies. Statistically significant differences in the odds ratios of concordance over time (baseline, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up) were found for marijuana and the combined category for PCP, amphetamine, and methamphetamine. Our findings suggest that oral fluid drug tests generally withstand community field assessments and result in relatively high levels of agreement for marijuana, cocaine, PCP, amphetamine, and methamphetamine use, when compared to self-report. Because of the ease of sample collection and low chance of adulteration, we conclude that saliva testing is a viable method for toxicological confirmation of substance use behavior in this setting.
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.