ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024
Screening of substance use in pregnancy: A Danish cross-sectional study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Screening of substance use in pregnancy: A Danish cross-sectional study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is a paucity of objectively verified data on substance use among Danish pregnant women. We estimated the prevalence of substance use including alcohol and nicotine among the general population of Danish pregnant women. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this anonymous, national, cross-sectional, descriptive study, pregnant women were invited when attending an ultrasound scan between November 2019 and December 2020 at nine Danish hospitals. Women submitted a urine sample and filled out a questionnaire. Urine samples were screened on-site with a qualitative urine dipstick for 15 substances including alcohol, nicotine, opioids, amphetamines, cannabis, and benzodiazepines. All screen-positive urine samples underwent secondary quantitative analyses with gold standard, liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis. Results were compared to questionnaire information to analyze the validity of self-reporting and to examine possible cross-reactions.
resultsA total of 1903 of 2154 invited pregnant women participated (88.3%). The prevalence of dipstick-positive urine samples was 25.0%. 44.0% of these were confirmed positive, resulting in a total confirmed prevalence of 10.8%. The prevalence of nicotine use was 10.1%-and for all other substances, <0.5%. Nicotine use was more prevalent among younger pregnant women, while other substance use appeared evenly distributed over age groups. Self-reporting of use of nicotine products was high (71.1%), but low for cannabis and alcohol intake (0% and 33.3%, respectively). Prescription medication explained almost all cases of oxycodone, methylphenidate, and benzodiazepine use.
conclusionsSubstance use among pregnant women consisted mainly of nicotine. Dipstick screening involved risks of false negatives and false positives. Except for alcohol intake and cannabis use, dipstick analyses did not seem to provide further information than self-reporting. LC-MS/MS analyses remain gold standard, and future role of dipstick screenings 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.