Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33598816›Full record

ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2021

Review of the Current State of Urine Drug Testing in Chronic Pain: Still Effective as a Clinical Tool and Curbing Abuse, or an Arcane Test?

Krishnan Chakravarthy, Aneesh Goel, George M Jeha, Alan David Kaye, Paul J Christo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prescribing controlled substances in sleep medicine clinics: an overview of legal issues and best safety practices.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025
    Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Krishnan ChakravarthyVA San Diego Healthcare System, UC San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. kvchakravarthy@ucsd.edu.
Aneesh GoelDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 550 North Broadway, Suite 301, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
George M JehaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Alan David KayeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Paul J ChristoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 550 North Broadway, Suite 301, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. pchristo@jhmi.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTherapeutic use, misuse, abuse, and diversion of controlled substances in managing chronic non-cancer pain remain a major concern for physicians, the government, payers, and patients. The challenge remains finding effective diagnostic tools that can be clinically validated to eliminate or substantially reduce the abuse of controlled prescription drugs, while still assuring the proper treatment of those patients in pain. Urine drug testing still remains an important means of adherence monitoring, but questions arise as to its relevance and effectiveness. This review examines the role of UDT, determines its utility in current clinical practice, and investigates its relevance in current chronic pain management. RECENT

findingsA review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Literature was searched from year 2000 to present examining the relevance and role of UDT in monitoring chronic opioid therapy along with reliability and accuracy, appropriate use, overuse, misuse, and abuse. There are only a limited number of reviews and investigations on UDT, despite the fact that clinicians who prescribe controlled medications for chronic states commonly are expected to utilize UDT. Therefore, despite highly prevalent use, there is a limited publication base from which to draw in this present study. Regardless of experience or training background, physicians and healthcare providers can much more adequately assess opioid therapy with the aid of UDT, which often requires confirmatory testing by a laboratory for clinical and therapeutic prescribing decisions. It has become a strongly recommended aspect of pain care with controlled substances locally, regionally, and nationally. Incorporating UDT for all patients in whom chronic opioid therapy is undertaken is consistent with state and national guidelines and best practice strategies. Practice standards vary as to the frequency of UDT locally, regionally, and nationally, however.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidChronic PainHumansSubstance Abuse DetectionAnalgesics, OpioidAbuseAdherence monitoringBenzodiazepinesChromatographyCompliance monitoringControlled substancesDiversionFalse negativesFalse positivesIllicit drugsImmunoassayOpioidsPrescription drug monitoring programsSubstance use disorderUrine drug testing

Identifiers

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.