ArticleJournal of analytical toxicology2021
A Computational Approach to Identify Interfering Medications on Urine Drug Screening Assays without Data from Confirmatory Testing.
Article in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Presumptive false-positive amphetamine urine screen in a pregnant woman receiving α-methyldopa: A case report.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Analysis of Electronic Health Records Reveals Medication-Related Interference on Point-of-Care Urine Drug Screening Assays.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Urine drug screening (UDS) assays can rapidly and sensitively detect drugs of abuse but can also produce spurious results due to interfering substances. We previously developed an approach to identify interfering medications using electronic health record (EHR) data, but the approach was limited to UDS assays for which presumptive positives were confirmed using more specific methods. Here we adapted the approach to search for medications that cause false positives on UDS assays lacking confirmation data. From our institution's EHR data, we used our previous dataset of 698,651 UDS and confirmation results. We also collected 211,108 UDS results for acetaminophen, ethanol and salicylates. Both datasets included individuals' prior medication exposures. We hypothesized that the odds of a presumptive positive would increase following exposure to an interfering medication independently of exposure to the assay's target drug(s). For a given assay-medication pair, we quantified potential interference as an odds ratio from logistic regression. We evaluated interference of selected compounds in spiking experiments. Compared to the approach requiring confirmation data, our adapted approach showed only modestly diminished ability to detect interfering medications. Applying our approach to the new data, we discovered and validated multiple compounds that can cause presumptive positives on the UDS assay for acetaminophen. Our approach can reveal interfering medications using EHR data from institutions at which UDS results are not routinely confirmed.
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.