Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32515820›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2020

Screening for Unhealthy Drug Use: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Carrie D Patnode, Leslie A Perdue, Megan Rushkin, Tracy Dana, Ian Blazina, Christina Bougatsos, Sara Grusing, Elizabeth A O'Connor, Rongwei Fu, Roger Chou

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Investigating for Whom Brief Substance Use Interventions Are Most Effective: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carrie D PatnodeKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Leslie A PerdueKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Megan RushkinKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Tracy DanaPacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Ian BlazinaPacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Christina BougatsosPacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Sara GrusingPacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Elizabeth A O'ConnorKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Rongwei FuPacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Roger ChouPacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Oregon Health & Science University · USKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · US

Funding

AHRQ HHS HHSA290201500007I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Illicit drug use is among the most common causes of preventable morbidity and mortality in the US. Objective: To systematically review the literature on screening and interventions for drug use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through September 18, 2018; literature surveillance through September 21, 2019. Study Selection: Test accuracy studies to detect drug misuse and randomized clinical trials of screening and interventions to reduce drug use. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers and random-effects meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, drug use and other health, social, and legal outcomes. Results: Ninety-nine studies (N = 84 206) were included. Twenty-eight studies (n = 65 720) addressed drug screening accuracy. Among adults, sensitivity and specificity of screening tools for detecting unhealthy drug use ranged from 0.71 to 0.94 and 0.87 to 0.97, respectively. Interventions to reduce drug use were evaluated in 52 trials (n = 15 659) of psychosocial interventions, 7 trials (n = 1109) of opioid agonist therapy, and 13 trials (n = 1718) of naltrexone. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of drug use abstinence (15 trials, n = 3636; relative risk [RR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.13]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 9% [95% CI, 5% to 15%]) and reduced number of drug use days (19 trials, n = 5085; mean difference, -0.49 day in the last 7 days [95% CI, -0.85 to -0.13]) vs no psychosocial intervention at 3- to 4-month follow-up. In treatment-seeking populations, opioid agonist therapy and naltrexone were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse (4 trials, n = 567; RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82]; ARD, -35% [95% CI, -67% to -3%] and 12 trials, n = 1599; RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.85]; ARD, -18% [95% CI, -26% to -10%], respectively) vs placebo or no medication. While evidence on harms was limited, it indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Several screening instruments with acceptable sensitivity and specificity are available to screen for drug use, although there is no direct evidence on the benefits or harms of screening. Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations.

Indexed as

PsychotherapyAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMass ScreeningNaloxoneNarcotic AntagonistsPractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancySensitivity and SpecificitySubstance Abuse DetectionSubstance-Related DisordersSurveys and QuestionnairesNaloxoneNarcotic Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID32515820
PMCPMC13580609
OpenAlexW3033460778

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.