Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38218980›Full record

ReviewHarm reduction journal2024

Enhancing drug checking services for supply monitoring: perspectives on implementation in syringe service programs in the USA.

Kyle J Moon, Heather D Whitehead, Anne Trinh, Kathryn A Hasenstab, Kathleen L Hayes, Debra Stanley, Brittany Carter, Rick Barclay, Marya Lieberman, Saira Nawaz

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Harm reduction journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. The Drug Market's Impact on the Overdose Risk Environment for Women Who Use Drugs During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kyle J MoonCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Evaluation Studies, Ohio State University College of Public Health, 381 Cunz Hall, 1841 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Heather D WhiteheadDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA.
Anne TrinhCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Evaluation Studies, Ohio State University College of Public Health, 381 Cunz Hall, 1841 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Kathryn A HasenstabCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Evaluation Studies, Ohio State University College of Public Health, 381 Cunz Hall, 1841 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Kathleen L HayesDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA.
Debra StanleyImani Unidad, Inc., South Bend, IN, USA.
Brittany CarterEquitas Health, Columbus, OH, USA.
Rick BarclayEquitas Health, Columbus, OH, USA.
Marya LiebermanDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA.
Saira NawazCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Evaluation Studies, Ohio State University College of Public Health, 381 Cunz Hall, 1841 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. snawaz@path.org.
University of Notre Dame · USThe Ohio State University · USAmerican Indian Center · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Project Management: Improving Submissions and Study Conduct in the Human Subjects Research Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002529 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MOE, SHARON M, WIEHE, SARAH ELIZABETH · 2018 to 2022
$27.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002529
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShifts in the US drug supply, including the proliferation of synthetic opioids and emergence of xylazine, have contributed to the worsening toll of the overdose epidemic. Drug checking services offer a critical intervention to promote agency among people who use drugs (PWUD) to reduce overdose risk. Current drug checking methods can be enhanced to contribute to supply-level monitoring in the USA, overcoming the selection bias associated with existing supply monitoring efforts and informing public health interventions.

methodsAs a group of analytical chemists, public health researchers, evaluators, and harm reductionists, we used a semi-structured guide to facilitate discussion of four different approaches for syringe service programs (SSPs) to offer drug checking services for supply-level monitoring. Using thematic analysis, we identified four key principles that SSPs should consider when implementing drug checking programs.

resultsA number of analytical methods exist for drug checking to contribute to supply-level monitoring. While there is likely not a one-size-fits-all approach, SSPs should prioritize methods that can (1) provide immediate utility to PWUD, (2) integrate seamlessly into existing workflows, (3) balance individual- and population-level data needs, and (4) attend to legal concerns for implementation and dissemination.

conclusionsEnhancing drug checking methods for supply-level monitoring has the potential to detect emerging threats in the drug supply and reduce the toll of the worsening overdose epidemic.

Indexed as

Drug OverdosePharmaceutical ServicesAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylHarm ReductionHumansPublic HealthAnalgesics, OpioidFentanylDrug checkingDrug supplyFentanyl test stripsHarm reductionImmunoassay stripsImplementation researchLC–MSOverdose preventionPublic health

Identifiers

PMID38218980
PMCPMC10788002
OpenAlexW4390837716

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.