Accuracy of substance exposure history in patients attending emergency departments after substance misuse; a comparison with biological sample analysis

References

• Binks S, Hoskins R, Salmon D, et al. Prevalence and healthcare burden of illegal drug use among emergency department patients. Emerg Med J. 2005;22(12):872–873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hoots BE, Scholl L, et al. Nonfatal drug overdoses treated in emergency departments - United States, 2016–2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(13):371–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson ZJ, Stellpflug SJ, Engebretsen KM. What can a urine drug screening immunoassay really tell Us? J Pharm Pract. 2016;29(5):516–526.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deville M, Bailly R, Gauthier N, et al. Biochip array technology for new psychoactive substances detection in biological samples: evaluation of the specificity of the Randox Evidence Investigator®. Ann Clin Biochem. 2022;59(5):357–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magura S. Validating self-reports of illegal drug use to evaluate National Drug Control Policy: a reanalysis and critique. Eval Program Plann. 2010;33(3):234–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamid R, Deren S, Beardsley M, et al. Agreement between urinalysis and self-reported drug use. Subst Use Misuse. 1999;34(11):1585–1592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colón HM, Robles RR, Sahai H. The validity of drug use self-reports among hard core drug users in a household survey in Puerto Rico: comparison of survey responses of cocaine and heroin use with hair tests. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67(3):269–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fendrich M, Johnson TP, Wislar JS, et al. The utility of drug testing in epidemiological research: results from a general population survey. Addiction. 2004;99(2):197–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison LD, Martin, SS, Enev T, Harrington, D. Comparing drug testing and self-report of drug use among youths and young adults in the general population (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4249, Methodology Series M-7). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. 2007. Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.9980&rep=rep1&type=pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fendrich M, Mackesy-Amiti ME, Johnson TP. Validity of self-reported substance use in men who have sex with men: comparisons with a general population sample. Ann Epidemiol. 2008;18(10):752–759.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt DE, Kling R, Almozlino Y, et al. Telling the truth about drug use: How much does it matter? J Drug Issues. 2015;45(3):314–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li DH, Janulis P, Mustanski B. Predictors of correspondence between self-reported substance use and urinalysis screening among a racially diverse cohort of young men who have sex with men and transgender women. Addict Behav. 2019;88:6–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohjola-Sintonen S, Kivistö KT, Vuori E, et al. Identification of drugs ingested in acute poisoning: correlation of patient history with drug analyses. Ther Drug Monit. 2000;22(6):749–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee MO, Vivier PM, Diercks DB. Is the self-report of recent cocaine or methamphetamine use reliable in illicit stimulant drug users who present to the Emergency Department with chest pain? J Emerg Med. 2009;37(2):237–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monte AA, Heard KJ, Hoppe JA, et al. The accuracy of self-reported drug ingestion histories in emergency department patients. J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;55(1):33–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abouchedid R, Hudson S, Thurtle N, et al. Analytical confirmation of synthetic cannabinoids in a cohort of 179 presentations with acute recreational drug toxicity to an Emergency Department in London, UK in the first half of 2015. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2017;55(5):338–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tebo C, Mazer-Amirshahi M, DeGeorge L, et al. Suspected synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist intoxication: does analysis of samples reflect the presence of suspected agents? Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(10):1846–1849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallersnes OM, Persett PS, Øiestad EL, et al. Underestimated impact of novel psychoactive substances: laboratory confirmation of recreational drug toxicity in Oslo, Norway. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2017;55(7):636–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monte AA, Hopkinson A, Saben J, et al. The Psychoactive Surveillance Consortium and Analysis Network (PSCAN): the first year. Addict Abingdon Engl. 2020;115(2):270–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trecki J, Gerona RR, Schwartz MD. Synthetic cannabinoid-related illnesses and deaths. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(2):103–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill SL, Najafi J, Dunn M, et al. Clinical toxicity following analytically confirmed use of the synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist MDMB-CHMICA. A report from the Identification of Novel psychoActive substances (IONA) study. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2016;54(8):638–643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill SL, Dunn M, Cano C, et al. Human toxicity caused by indole and indazole carboxylate synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists: from horizon scanning to notification. Clin Chem. 2018;64(2):346–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haden M, Cashman J, Ketchin A, et al. Detection of flubromazolam in patients with suspected non-medical drug use attending emergency departments in the United Kingdom. Clin Toxicol. 2022;60:33–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Kingdom Accreditation Service. UKAS accreditation of laboratories performing analysis of toxicology samples [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 11]. Available from: 2021;https://www.ukas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/LAB-51-UKAS-Accreditation-of-Laboratories-Performing-Analysis-of-Toxicology-Samples.pdf
   Google Scholar
• MedCalc Software Ltd. Diagnostic test evaluation calculator [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 15]. Available from: https://www.medcalc.org/calc/diagnostic_test.php
   Google Scholar
• Araújo AM, Valente MJ, Carvalho M, et al. Raising awareness of new psychoactive substances: chemical analysis and in vitro toxicity screening of “legal high” packages containing synthetic cathinones. Arch Toxicol. 2015;89(5):757–771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunt TM, Nagy C, Bücheli A, et al. Drug testing in Europe: monitoring results of the Trans European Drug Information (TEDI) project. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9(2):188–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies S, Wood DM, Smith G, et al. Purchasing ‘legal highs’ on the Internet—is there consistency in what you get? QJM. 2010;103(7):489–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogels N, Brunt TM, Rigter S, et al. Content of ecstasy in The Netherlands: 1993–2008. Addiction. 2009;104(12):2057–2066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron M, Elie M, Elie L. An analysis of legal highs: do they contain what it says on the tin? Drug Test Anal. 2011;3(9):576–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ti L, Tobias S, Maghsoudi N, et al. Detection of synthetic cannabinoid adulteration in the unregulated drug supply in three Canadian settings. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2021;40(4):580–585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jufer RA, Wstadik A, Walsh SL, et al. Elimination of cocaine and metabolites in plasma, saliva, and urine following repeated oral administration to human volunteers. J Anal Toxicol. 2000;24(7):467–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braithwaite RA, Jarvie DR, Minty PS, et al. Screening for drugs of abuse. I: opiates, amphetamines and cocaine. Ann Clin Biochem. 1995;32(2):123–153.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar