Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38584266›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2024

Screening for harmful substance use in emergency departments: a systematic review.

Jessica Moe, Justin Koh, Jennifer A Ma, Lulu X Pei, Eleanor MacLean, James Keech, Kaitlyn Maguire, Claire Ronsley, Mary M Doyle-Waters, Jeffrey R Brubacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Jessica MoeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Diamond Health Care Centre, 11 Floor - 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. jessica.moe@ubc.ca.
Justin KohDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, 76 Stuart Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 2V7, Canada.
Jennifer A MaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Manitoba, S203 Medical Sciences Building, 750 Bannatyne Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0W2, Canada.
Lulu X PeiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Diamond Health Care Centre, 11 Floor - 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Eleanor MacLeanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Diamond Health Care Centre, 11 Floor - 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
James KeechSchool of Medicine, Queen's University, 15 Arch Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Kaitlyn MaguireDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Diamond Health Care Centre, 11 Floor - 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Claire RonsleyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Diamond Health Care Centre, 11 Floor - 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Mary M Doyle-WatersCentre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, 7th Floor, 828 West 10th Avenue, Research Pavilion, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Jeffrey R BrubacherDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Diamond Health Care Centre, 11 Floor - 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstance use-related emergency department (ED) visits have increased substantially in North America. Screening for substance use in EDs is recommended; best approaches are unclear. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on diagnostic accuracy of ED screening tools to detect harmful substance use.

methodsWe included derivation or validation studies, with or without comparator, that included adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients and evaluated screening tools to identify general or specific substance use disorders or harmful use. Our search strategy combined concepts Emergency Department AND Screening AND Substance Use. Trained reviewers assessed title/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. Reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary investigators adjudicated if necessary. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We descriptively summarized results.

resultsOur search strategy yielded 2696 studies; we included 33. Twenty-one (64%) evaluated a North American population. Fourteen (42%) applied screening among general ED patients. Screening tools were administered by research staff (n = 21), self-administered by patients (n = 10), or non-research healthcare providers (n = 1). Most studies evaluated alcohol use screens (n = 26), most commonly the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; n = 14), Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye-opener (CAGE; n = 13), and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS/RAPS4/RAPS4-QF; n = 12). Four studies assessing six tools and screening thresholds for alcohol abuse/dependence in North American patients (AUDIT ≥ 8; CAGE ≥ 2; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition [DSM-IV-2] ≥ 1; RAPS ≥ 1; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA]; Tolerance/Worry/Eye-opener/Amnesia/K-Cut down [TWEAK] ≥ 3) reported both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83%. Two studies evaluating a single alcohol screening question (SASQ) (When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?, X = 4 for women; X = 5 for men) reported sensitivities 82-85% and specificities 70-77%. Five evaluated screening tools for general substance abuse/dependence (Relax/Alone/Friends/Family/Trouble [RAFFT] ≥ 3, Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST] ≥ 4, single drug screening question, Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] ≥ 42/18), reporting sensitivities 64%-90% and specificities 61%-100%. Studies' risk of bias were mostly high or uncertain.

conclusionsSix screening tools demonstrated both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83% for detecting alcohol abuse/dependence in EDs. Tools with the highest sensitivities (AUDIT ≥ 8; RAPS ≥ 1) and that prioritize simplicity and efficiency (SASQ) should be prioritized.

Indexed as

DepartmentsDrug abuse screeningEmergencyPublic healthSubstance-related disorders

Identifiers

PMID38584266
PMCPMC11000386

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.