ArticleCanadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur2018
The utility of universal urinary drug screening in chronic pain management.
Article in Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Trends in Urine Drug Testing Among Long-term Opioid Users, 2012-2018.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Opioid moderatism and the imperative of rapprochement in pain medicine.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Increased frequency of urine drug testing in chronic opioid therapy: rationale for strategies for enhancing patient adherence and safety.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent systematic review found few studies that assessed the value of urinary drug screening (UDS) in the management of chronic pain. The Pain Management Unit in Halifax, Nova Scotia, has recently implemented tandem mass spectrometry (TMS) UDS for all new patients.
aimsTo study the prevalence of unexpected TMS UDS results at a hospital-based chronic pain center, to assess which drugs are most likely to contribute to an unexpected result and to assess the clinical utilization of unexpected results by pain physicians.
methodsFrom June 2014 to June 2016, a total of 664 patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) were seen for initial consult. Charts were reviewed and used to create a database containing sex, age, UDS result, physician, and medication/illicit drug history. For all unexpected UDS results, an interview was conducted with the treating physician to determine its clinical implications.
resultsFor the general pain specialists, the overall percentage of patients with an unexpected UDS result was 16.67%. Excluding codeine, at most 4.47% of patients tested unexpectedly positive for a strong opioid. Although eight out of nine physicians found UDS helpful in general, only 29.58% of unexpected results were helpful in the management of their patients and directly influenced their care.
conclusionsThe prevalence of an unexpected UDS result in patients with CNCP is significant. Most physicians agree that UDS is helpful but in only a limited number of cases did the unexpected result provide helpful information that significantly influenced patient care.
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.