Historique
Article de Périodique
Does urine drug abuse screening help for managing patients? A systematic review (2014)
Auteur(s) :
DUPOUY, J. ;
MÉMIER, V. ;
CATALA, H. ;
LAVIT, M. ;
OUSTRIC, S. ;
LAPEYRE-MESTRE, M.
Année
2014
Page(s) :
11-20
Sous-type de document :
Revue de la littérature / Literature review
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Domaine :
Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Résumé :
BACKGROUND: In the field of addiction, assessment of psychoactive substance use is a key element. Nevertheless, self-reports and clinical examination underestimate the use of psychoactive substances. The implementation of urine drug screening tests (UDS) should improve this assessment. While the diagnostic value of UDS is well demonstrated, the consequences of carrying out UDS on medical management have not been established. Our aim was to summarize the evidence pertaining to the efficacy of UDS for medical management.
METHODS: A systematic review of clinical trials, quasi-randomized and observational studies was performed using PubMed, Cochrane database of systematic review, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycINFO, National Institute on Drug Abuse, ISI Web of Science. The methodological quality was assessed with the score developed by Starrels et al.; the report quality using the CONSORT and the STROBE checklists. The main outcome was medical management or consequences of management for patients in terms of psychoactive substance consumption and its complications, be they medical, social or professional.
RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria: one randomized clinical trial, two quasi-randomized studies, one cohort, and four cross-sectional studies. The methodological quality was judged to be poor, with the exception of the randomized clinical trial (fair quality). The value of UDS in managing patients was not clearly indicated in these studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Few studies, with poor quality, have assessed the value of UDS in managing patients using psychoactive substances; though with insufficiency to demonstrate the interest of carrying out UDS. Therefore, pragmatic intervention studies are necessary.
METHODS: A systematic review of clinical trials, quasi-randomized and observational studies was performed using PubMed, Cochrane database of systematic review, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycINFO, National Institute on Drug Abuse, ISI Web of Science. The methodological quality was assessed with the score developed by Starrels et al.; the report quality using the CONSORT and the STROBE checklists. The main outcome was medical management or consequences of management for patients in terms of psychoactive substance consumption and its complications, be they medical, social or professional.
RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria: one randomized clinical trial, two quasi-randomized studies, one cohort, and four cross-sectional studies. The methodological quality was judged to be poor, with the exception of the randomized clinical trial (fair quality). The value of UDS in managing patients was not clearly indicated in these studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Few studies, with poor quality, have assessed the value of UDS in managing patients using psychoactive substances; though with insufficiency to demonstrate the interest of carrying out UDS. Therefore, pragmatic intervention studies are necessary.
Affiliation :
Département Universitaire de Médecine Générale, Université de Toulouse ; Faculté de Médecine, Toulouse, France