ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2024
[Urine Screening for Narcotics under Court-Imposed Abstinence Requirements: Comparative Validity of Forensic-Toxicological Analyses with Involvement of Public Health Services].
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of the studyAssessment of the comparative validity between qualitative and quantitative analyses of urine screenings for defined narcotics residues under court-imposed abstinence restrictions.
methodsFollowing the introduction of a valid marker system which, based on the application of a defined sugar substance and its detection in the urine of person under probation in 2006, urine samples were assayed in administrative cooperation by a Bavarian public health office for probationary services for evidence of narcotics. The urine samples were sent to an external laboratory in order to carry out forensic toxicological analyses for defined narcotics. The qualitative and quantitative laboratory results were reported back to the public health department so that a digital-based data set of a total of 380 persons with more than 27,000 individual analyses from a total of 14 consecutive calendar years could be established and retrospectively evaluated in an anonymised form.
resultsThe overall prevalences of findings positive for narcotics were 2.7% (n=366 of 13,531) for the qualitative and 2.6% (n=348 of 13,525) for the subsequent quantitative result categorisations, with cannabis and opiates being detected most frequently in both test methods. Using the kappa coefficient as a quantitative measure for the comparative validity of both test methods, the test results showed the highest agreement (1.000) for buprenorphine and lowest agreement for PCP (0.880). No age- and gender-specific stratifications could be recorded for a total of ten different narcotic substances; substance-specific case numbers differed among the analyses.
conclusionBased on the strong to very strong correspondences between qualitative and quantitative narcotics analysis results, it could be assumed that both analysis methods accurately recorded violations of abstinence requirements and were to be classified as sufficiently substantiating for judicial decisions under the Narcotics Act (Betäubungsmittelgesetz, BtMG). According to these results, the content of urine screenings for narcotics controlling abstinence should be discussed.
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.