Historique
Article de Périodique
Agreement between self-reported illicit drug use and biological samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023)
Auteur(s) :
BHARAT, C. ;
WEBB, P. ;
WILKINSON, Z. ;
McKETIN, R. ;
GREBELY, J. ;
FARRELL, M. ;
HOLLAND, A. ;
HICKMAN, M. ;
TRAN, L. T. ;
CLARK, B. ;
PEACOCK, A. ;
DARKE, S. ;
LI, J. H. ;
DEGENHARDT, L.
Année
2023
Page(s) :
1624-1648
Sous-type de document :
Méta-analyse / Meta-analysis ; Revue de la littérature / Literature review
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Refs biblio. :
32
Domaine :
Drogues illicites / Illicit drugs
Discipline :
EPI (Epidémiologie / Epidemiology)
Thésaurus mots-clés
PRODUIT ILLICITE
;
COMPARAISON
;
AUTOEVALUATION
;
ANALYSE CHIMIQUE
;
DEPISTAGE
;
SENSIBILITE
;
TEST
;
URINE
;
SALIVE
;
PHANERES
Résumé :
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies often rely upon self-report and biological testing methods for measuring illicit drug use, although evidence for their agreement is limited to specific populations and self-report instruments. We aimed to examine comprehensively the evidence for agreement between self-reported and biologically measured illicit drug use among all major illicit drug classes, biological indicators, populations and settings.
METHODS: We systematically searched peer-reviewed databases (Medline, Embase and PsycINFO) and grey literature. Included studies reported 2 × 2 table counts or agreement estimates comparing self-reported and biologically measured use published up to March 2022. With biological results considered to be the reference standard and use of random-effect regression models, we evaluated pooled estimates for overall agreement (primary outcome), sensitivity, specificity, false omission rates (proportion reporting no use that test positive) and false discovery rates (proportion reporting use that test negative) by drug class, potential consequences attached to self-report (i.e. work, legal or treatment impacts) and time-frame of use. Heterogeneity was assessed by inspecting forest plots.
RESULTS: From 7924 studies, we extracted data from 207 eligible studies. Overall agreement ranged from good to excellent (>0.79). False omission rates were generally low, while false discovery rates varied by setting. Specificity was generally high but sensitivity varied by drug, sample type and setting. Self-report in clinical trials and situations of no consequences was generally reliable. For urine, recent (i.e. past 1-4 days) self-report produced lower sensitivity and false discovery rates than past month. Agreement was higher in studies that informed participants biological testing would occur (diagnostic odds ratio = 2.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.25-6.78). The main source of bias was biological assessments (51% studies).
CONCLUSIONS: While there are limitations associated with self-report and biological testing to measure illicit drug use, overall agreement between the two methods is high, suggesting both provide good measures of illicit drug use. Recommended methods of biological testing are more likely to provide reliable measures of recent use if there are problems with self-disclosure.
METHODS: We systematically searched peer-reviewed databases (Medline, Embase and PsycINFO) and grey literature. Included studies reported 2 × 2 table counts or agreement estimates comparing self-reported and biologically measured use published up to March 2022. With biological results considered to be the reference standard and use of random-effect regression models, we evaluated pooled estimates for overall agreement (primary outcome), sensitivity, specificity, false omission rates (proportion reporting no use that test positive) and false discovery rates (proportion reporting use that test negative) by drug class, potential consequences attached to self-report (i.e. work, legal or treatment impacts) and time-frame of use. Heterogeneity was assessed by inspecting forest plots.
RESULTS: From 7924 studies, we extracted data from 207 eligible studies. Overall agreement ranged from good to excellent (>0.79). False omission rates were generally low, while false discovery rates varied by setting. Specificity was generally high but sensitivity varied by drug, sample type and setting. Self-report in clinical trials and situations of no consequences was generally reliable. For urine, recent (i.e. past 1-4 days) self-report produced lower sensitivity and false discovery rates than past month. Agreement was higher in studies that informed participants biological testing would occur (diagnostic odds ratio = 2.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.25-6.78). The main source of bias was biological assessments (51% studies).
CONCLUSIONS: While there are limitations associated with self-report and biological testing to measure illicit drug use, overall agreement between the two methods is high, suggesting both provide good measures of illicit drug use. Recommended methods of biological testing are more likely to provide reliable measures of recent use if there are problems with self-disclosure.
Affiliation :
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, NSW, Australia
The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, NSW, Australia
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
Doctoral and Master Degree Program in Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, NSW, Australia
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
School of Psychology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
Doctoral and Master Degree Program in Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Cote :
Abonnement