ArticleJournal of analytical toxicology2022
Analysis of Electronic Health Records Reveals Medication-Related Interference on Point-of-Care Urine Drug Screening Assays.
Article in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Point-of-care (POC) urine drug screening (UDS) assays provide immediate information for patient management. However, POC UDS assays can produce false-positive results, which may not be recognized until confirmatory testing is completed several days later. To minimize the potential for patient harm, it is critical to identify sources of interference. Here, we applied an approach based on statistical analysis of electronic health record (EHR) data to identify medications that may cause false positives on POC UDS assays. From our institution's EHR data, we extracted 120,670 POC UDS and confirmation results, covering 12 classes of target drugs, along with each individual's prior medication exposures. Our approach is based on the idea that exposure to an interfering medication will increase the odds of a false-positive UDS result. For a given assay-medication pair, we quantified the association between medication exposures and UDS results as an odds ratio from logistic regression. We evaluated interference experimentally by spiking compounds into drug-free urine and testing the spiked samples on the POC device. Our dataset included 446 false-positive UDS results (presumptive positive screen followed by negative confirmation). We quantified the odds ratio of false positives for 528 assay-medication pairs. Of the six assay-medication pairs we evaluated experimentally, two showed interference capable of producing a presumptive positive: labetalol on the 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) assay (at 200 μg/mL) and ranitidine on the methamphetamine assay (at 50 μg/mL). Ranitidine also produced a presumptive positive for opiates at 1,600 μg/mL and for propoxyphene at 800 μg/mL. These findings highlight the generalizability and the limits of our approach to use EHR data to identify medications that interfere with clinical immunoassays.
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.