Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40061067›Full record

ArticleEJIFCC2025

Abnormal Urine Drug Screens in Pregnancy- Opportunity for Laboratory Stewardship.

Anil K Chokkalla, Sahil Malik, Ridwan Ibrahim, Sridevi Devaraj

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in EJIFCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Anil K ChokkallaDepartment of Pathology & Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Sahil MalikDepartment of Pathology & Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Ridwan IbrahimDepartment of Pathology & Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Sridevi DevarajDepartment of Pathology & Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical testing for drugs of abuse typically involves initial screening followed by confirmatory testing. Due to limited evidence-based guidelines, the healthcare provider makes the decision to confirm abnormal screens based on the clinical context. This two-step approach proved to be inadequate in scenarios like maternal substance abuse and subsequent fetal/ newborn exposure. The goal of this study is to assess and improve the confirmatory testing rate of abnormal screens among pregnant patients at our women's center. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the confirmation rates among positively screened pregnant patients, and a lab stewardship initiative was implemented to remind ordering physicians about the importance of confirmatory drug tests. Abnormal screens were classified as expected positives based on the medication-related interference, social history and self-reported substance use from the provider notes. Results: Only 28% of pregnant patients with unexpected positive drug screens underwent confirmatory testing during the pre- intervention period, which rose significantly to 67% during the post-intervention period. Furthermore, outcome analysis revealed that 50% of patients with concordant confirmatory test results were referred to social work and psychiatry in the post-intervention period. Conclusions: This study highlights the value of laboratory stewardship in optimizing drug testing practices for pregnant patients.

Indexed as

ImmunoassaysLab StewardshipMass SpectrometryReflexive AlgorithmsSubstance Use Disorder

Identifiers

PMID40061067
PMCPMC11886620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.