Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38250198›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2024

Screening for problematic opioid use in the emergency department: Comparison of two screening measures.

Brittany E Punches, Caroline E Freiermuth, Jon E Sprague, Jennifer L Brown, Elizabeth Hutzel-Dunham, Joshua Lambert, Robert Braun, Andrew Littlefield, Jennifer A Frey, Daniel J Bachmann and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

15 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Brittany E PunchesCollege of Nursing The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-1966
Caroline E FreiermuthDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USA.
Jon E SpragueThe Ohio Attorney General's Center for the Future of Forensic Science Bowling Green State University Bowling Green Ohio USA.
Jennifer L BrownDepartment of Psychological Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana USA.
Elizabeth Hutzel-DunhamCollege of Nursing University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio USA.
Joshua LambertCollege of Nursing University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio USA.
Robert BraunDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USA.
Andrew LittlefieldDepartment of Psychological Sciences Texas Tech University Lubbock Texas USA.
Jennifer A FreyDepartment of Emergency Medicine The Ohio State University College of Medicine Columbus Ohio USA.
Daniel J BachmannDepartment of Emergency Medicine The Ohio State University College of Medicine Columbus Ohio USA.
Jason J BischofDepartment of Emergency Medicine The Ohio State University College of Medicine Columbus Ohio USA.
Michael V PantalonDepartment of Emergency Medicine Yale University School of Medicine New Haven Connecticut USA.
Rachel M AnconaDepartment of Emergency Medicine Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis Missouri USA.
David F KisorDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacogenomics College of Pharmacy Natural and Health Sciences Manchester University Fort Wayne Indiana USA.
Michael S LyonsDepartment of Emergency Medicine The Ohio State University College of Medicine Columbus Ohio USA.
The Ohio State University · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · USBowling Green State University · USManchester University · USPurdue University West Lafayette · USTexas Tech University · USWashington University in St. Louis · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Decision-Making Factors for Therapeutic Opioid Use after Emergency CareK08DA049948 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI PUNCHES, BRITTANY E · 2021 to 2025
$955k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIDA NIH HHS K08 DA049948NIDA NIH HHS L30 DA047006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study objective: Earlier intervention for opioid use disorder (OUD) may reduce long-term health implications. Emergency departments (EDs) in the United States treat millions with OUD annually who may not seek care elsewhere. Our objectives were (1) to compare two screening measures for OUD characterization in the ED and (2) to determine the proportion of ED patients screening positive for OUD and those who endorse other substance use to guide future screening programs. Methods: A cross-sectional study of randomly selected adult patients presenting to three Midwestern US EDs were enrolled, with duplicate patients excluded. Surveys were administered via research assistant and documented on tablet devices. Demographics were self-reported, and OUD positivity was assessed by the DSM 5 checklist and the WHO ASSIST 3.1. The primary outcome was the concordance between two screening measures for OUD. Our secondary outcome was the proportion of ED patients meeting OUD criteria and endorsed co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD) criteria. Results: We enrolled 1305 participants; median age of participants was 46 years (range 18-84), with 639 (49.0%) Non-Hispanic, White, and 693 (53.1%) female. Current OUD positivity was identified in 17% (222 out of 1305) of the participants via either DSM-5 (two or more criteria) or ASSIST (score of 4 or greater). We found moderate agreement between the measures (kappa = 0.56; Phi coefficient = 0.57). Of individuals screening positive for OUD, 182 (82%) endorsed criteria for co-occurring SUD. Conclusions: OUD is remarkably prevalent in ED populations, with one in six ED patients screening positive. We found a high prevalence of persons identified with OUD and co-occurring SUD, with moderate agreement between measures. Developing and implementing clinically feasible OUD screening in the ED is essential to enable intervention.

Identifiers

PMID38250198
PMCPMC10798174
OpenAlexW4391024788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.