ArticleClinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)2024
High concordance between urine toxicology results and self-reported fentanyl use in Nevada and New Mexico.
Article in Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustained abstinence after a methamphetamine-specific treatment program for pregnant and parenting women.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The emergence of fentanyl in a stimulant landscape: Un/intentional use, social relations, and developing communities of care.The International journal on drug policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCo-use of stimulants and opioids is often deliberate. However, the possibility remains that some people are unintentionally consuming fentanyl. To advance understanding of overdose risk, we examined the rate of concordance between self-reported fentanyl use and corresponding urine toxicology screen results.
methodsBetween August 2022-August 2023, 411 participants (adults who reported any non-medical drug use in the past three months) in Nevada and New Mexico completed a cross-sectional survey, of whom 64% (
resultsOf the 270 participants who provided a urine sample, 268 are included in the descriptive statistics (two with inconclusive urine toxicology screen results were excluded). Of the 268 participants, 146 (54.5%) had a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen result, 122 (45.5%) had a fentanyl-negative urine toxicology screen result, 137 (51.1%) reported past three-day fentanyl use, and 130 (48.5%) reported no past three-day fentanyl use. Only 6.9% of those with a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen did not report recent fentanyl use. The sensitivity of self-reported fentanyl use was 93%, specificity was 97%, positive predictive value was 97%, and negative predictive value was 92%. DISCUSSION: The rate of unanticipated exposure to fentanyl (that is, positive urine screen and negative self-report) in this sample was low, at 6.9%. This runs counter to the national narrative that there is widespread unknown contamination of fentanyl in the drug supply.
conclusionFuture research is needed to further explore how people who use multiple substances interpret their overdose risk and what harm reduction methods they employ.
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.