Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31527982›Full record

ReviewMissouri medicine

Opioid Use Disorder Assessment Tools and Drug Screening.

James Ducharme, Sean Moore

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Review in Missouri medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Psychological Survivorship in Head and Neck Cancer.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. How to Measure Pain.Current oncology reports · 2020
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James DucharmeJames Ducharme, MD, is a Clinical Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Sean Moore, MD, is Assistant Professor, Northern ontario School of Medicine in Kenora, Ontario.
Sean MooreJames Ducharme, MD, is a Clinical Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Sean Moore, MD, is Assistant Professor, Northern ontario School of Medicine in Kenora, Ontario.
McMaster Divinity College · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opioid use disorder risk assessment tools cannot be used in isolation. In combination with standardized clinical examination, and, when indicated, urine drug screening, a validated risk assessment tool, improves the ability to detect opioid misuse. Even though no single tool has been shown to have both high interobserver reliability and high sensitivity, the standardized approach has still been shown to be superior to subjective care giver assessment. This article will provide a global approach to risk assessment in addition to reviewing the available tools.

Indexed as

HumansMass ScreeningOpioid-Related DisordersRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID31527982
PMCPMC6699803
OpenAlexW2989727975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.