Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32535605›Full record

ArticleEuropean addiction research2021

Drug Checking and Its Potential Impact on Substance Use.

Felix Betzler, Jonas Helbig, Leonard Viohl, Felicitas Ernst, Lukas Roediger, Stefan Gutwinski, Andreas Ströhle, Stephan Köhler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European addiction research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

8 authors.

Felix BetzlerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany, felix.betzler@charite.de.
Jonas HelbigDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Leonard ViohlDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Felicitas ErnstDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Lukas RoedigerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Stefan GutwinskiDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas StröhleDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Stephan KöhlerDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDrug checking as a tool for harm reduction is offered in certain cities throughout Europe, the USA, and Australia, but in general, it is internationally still scarcely available and controversially discussed. This study aimed at investigating the potential impact of a drug-checking offer on Berlin nightlife attendees' illicit drug use and at identifying the encouraging and discouraging factors for using or refraining from such an offer.

methodsUsing an online questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in a Berlin party scene. A total of 719 people participated in the survey that took part in 2019.

resultsThe vast majority of participants (92%) stated that they would use drug checking, if existent. If the test revealed the sample to contain a high amount of active ingredient, 91% indicated to take less of the substance than usual. Two-thirds (66%) would discharge the sample if it contained an unexpected/unwanted agent along with the intended substance. If the sample contained only unexpected/unwanted substances and not the intended substance at all, 93% stated to discharge the sample. Additional brief counseling was stated to be useful. Participants showed a comparatively high substance use.

conclusionsDrug checking as a harm reduction tool was highly accepted in the scene, and the majority of participants stated to align their consumption behavior accordingly, in a reasonable manner. A concomitant consultation would be appreciated, which may be used to direct educational information about harms and risks to users.

Indexed as

Substance-Related DisordersBerlinCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIllicit DrugsMaleIllicit DrugsDrug checkingHarm reductionParty scenePreventionSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID32535605
PMCPMC7845440

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.