ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2026
Discrepancies in Urine Drug Screening Among Patients Receiving Chronic Opioid Therapy for Non-Cancer Pain: A Retrospective Review.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis study reviews urine drug screening (UDS) outcomes in patients undergoing chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer related pain. The objective was to assess the prevalence of aberrant results, including the presence of non-prescribed substances, absence of prescribed opioids, and other discrepancies, using random electronic medical record (EMR) review over a one-year period. RECENT
findingsFifty-six patient records from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, were randomly selected and reviewed. Urine drug screens were compared against prescribed opioid regimens. Eight patients (14.3%) tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) compounds, while one patient (1.8%) tested positive for cocaine. Notably, nine patients (16.1%) had negative screens for opioids that were currently prescribed, raising concerns about diversion or nonadherence. Additionally, three patients (5.4%) tested positive for an opioid different from the one prescribed. Overall, discrepancies between prescribed medications and urine drug screen findings were common, suggesting challenges in adherence monitoring and the need for structured screening protocols.
conclusionUnexpected urine drug screening results are prevalent among patients on chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain. The high rates of absent prescribed opioids, presence of non-prescribed substances, and detection of illicit drugs highlight the importance of routine screening, careful documentation, and patient-provider communication to optimize safe opioid prescribing practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42060008What 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.