Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34593036›Full record

ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2021

A Descriptive analysis of urine drug screen results in patients with opioid use disorder managed in a primary care setting.

Halle G Sobel, Jill S Warrington, Samuel Francis-Fath, Abigail M Crocker, Claudia A Berger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Opioid dependence in patients with pain in chronic pancreatitis an emerging problem.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Halle G SobelUniversity of Vermont, Robert Larner College of Medicine, VT, Burlington, USA. Halle.sobel@uvmhealth.org.ORCID 0000-0001-8868-8476
Jill S WarringtonUniversity of Vermont, Robert Larner College of Medicine, VT, Burlington, USA.
Samuel Francis-FathUniversity of Vermont, Robert Larner College of Medicine, VT, Burlington, USA.
Abigail M CrockerUniversity of Vermont, Robert Larner College of Medicine, VT, Burlington, USA.
Claudia A BergerUniversity of Vermont, Robert Larner College of Medicine, VT, Burlington, USA.
University of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrine drug screening (UDS) is commonly used as part of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), including treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD in a primary care setting. Very little is known about the value of UDS, the optimum screening frequency in general, or its specific use for buprenorphine treatment in primary care. To address this question, we thought that in a stable population receiving buprenorphine-naloxone in the primary care setting it would be useful to know how often UDS yielded expected and unexpected results.

methodsWe present a descriptive analysis of UDS results in patients treated with buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD in a primary care setting over a two-year period. An unexpected test result is: 1. A negative test for buprenorphine and/or 2. A positive test for opioids, methadone, cocaine and/or heroin.

resultsA total of 161 patients received care during the study period and a total of 2588 test results were analyzed from this population. We found that 64.4% of the patient population (n = 104 patients) demonstrated both treatment adherence (as measured by buprenorphine positive test results) and no apparent unexpected test findings, as defined by negative tests for opioids, methadone, cocaine and heroin. Of the 161 patients, 20 results were positive for opioids, 5 for methadone, 39 for heroin and 2 for cocaine. Analysis at the UDS level demonstrated that, of the 2588 test results, 38 (1.5%) results did not have buprenorphine. Of the 2588, 28 (1.1%) test results were positive for opioids, 8 (0.3%) were positive for methadone, 39 (1.5%) for cocaine and 2 (0.1%) for heroin.

conclusionGiven that the majority of patients in our study had expected urine results, it may be reasonable for less frequent urine testing in certain patients.

Indexed as

BuprenorphineOpioid-Related DisordersAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphine, Naloxone Drug CombinationHumansMethadoneNarcotic AntagonistsOpiate Substitution TreatmentPrimary Health CareAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineBuprenorphine, Naloxone Drug CombinationMethadoneNarcotic AntagonistsBuprenorphine-naloxoneMedications for treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD)Opioid use disorderUrine drug screen

Identifiers

PMID34593036
PMCPMC8482571
OpenAlexW3203592937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.