Approaches and reporting of alcohol and other drug testing for injured patients in hospital‐based studies: A systematic review.
Saved in:
| Title: | Approaches and reporting of alcohol and other drug testing for injured patients in hospital‐based studies: A systematic review. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lau, Georgina (AUTHOR), Ang, Jia Y. (AUTHOR), Kim, Nayoung (AUTHOR), Gabbe, Belinda J. (AUTHOR), Mitra, Biswadev (AUTHOR), Dietze, Paul M. (AUTHOR), Reeder, Sandra (AUTHOR), Beck, Ben (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Drug & Alcohol Review. May2024, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p897-926. 30p. |
| Subjects: | Drug use testing, Blood alcohol, Test methods, Drugs of abuse |
| Abstract: | Issue: Hospital alcohol and/or other drug (AOD) testing is important for identifying AOD‐related injuries; however, testing methods vary. This systematic review aimed to examine biological AOD testing methods from hospital‐based studies of injured patients and quantify what proportion reported key information on those testing methods. Approach: Observational studies published in English from 2010 onwards involving biological AOD testing for injured patients presenting to hospital were included. Studies examining single injury causes were excluded. Extracted data included concentration thresholds for AOD detection (e.g., lower limits of detection, author‐defined cut‐offs), test type (e.g., immunoassay, breathalyser) and approach (e.g., routine, clinical discretion), timing of testing, sample type and the proportion of injured cases tested for AODs. Key Findings: Of 83 included studies, 76 measured alcohol and 37 other drugs. Forty‐nine studies defined blood alcohol concentration thresholds (ranging from 0 to 0.1 g/100 mL). Seven studies defined concentration thresholds for other drugs. Testing approach was reported in 39/76 alcohol and 18/37 other drug studies. Sample type was commonly reported (alcohol: n = 69/76; other drugs: n = 28/37); alcohol was typically measured using blood (n = 60) and other drugs using urine (n = 20). Studies that reported the proportion of cases tested (alcohol: n = 53/76; other drugs: n = 28/37), reported that between 0% and 89% of cases were not tested for alcohol and 0% and 91% for other drugs. Timing of testing was often unreported (alcohol: n = 61; other drugs: n = 30). Implications and Conclusion: Variation in AOD testing methods alongside incomplete reporting of those methods limits data comparability and interpretation. Standardised reporting of testing methods will assist AOD‐related injury surveillance and prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Issue: Hospital alcohol and/or other drug (AOD) testing is important for identifying AOD‐related injuries; however, testing methods vary. This systematic review aimed to examine biological AOD testing methods from hospital‐based studies of injured patients and quantify what proportion reported key information on those testing methods. Approach: Observational studies published in English from 2010 onwards involving biological AOD testing for injured patients presenting to hospital were included. Studies examining single injury causes were excluded. Extracted data included concentration thresholds for AOD detection (e.g., lower limits of detection, author‐defined cut‐offs), test type (e.g., immunoassay, breathalyser) and approach (e.g., routine, clinical discretion), timing of testing, sample type and the proportion of injured cases tested for AODs. Key Findings: Of 83 included studies, 76 measured alcohol and 37 other drugs. Forty‐nine studies defined blood alcohol concentration thresholds (ranging from 0 to 0.1 g/100 mL). Seven studies defined concentration thresholds for other drugs. Testing approach was reported in 39/76 alcohol and 18/37 other drug studies. Sample type was commonly reported (alcohol: n = 69/76; other drugs: n = 28/37); alcohol was typically measured using blood (n = 60) and other drugs using urine (n = 20). Studies that reported the proportion of cases tested (alcohol: n = 53/76; other drugs: n = 28/37), reported that between 0% and 89% of cases were not tested for alcohol and 0% and 91% for other drugs. Timing of testing was often unreported (alcohol: n = 61; other drugs: n = 30). Implications and Conclusion: Variation in AOD testing methods alongside incomplete reporting of those methods limits data comparability and interpretation. Standardised reporting of testing methods will assist AOD‐related injury surveillance and prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09595236 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/dar.13816 |
