Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33600199›Full record

ReviewExperimental and clinical psychopharmacology2021

Drug checking at dance festivals: A review with recommendations to increase generalizability of findings.

Joseph J Palamar, Nicole D Fitzgerald, Katherine M Keyes, Linda B Cottler

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Interpol Review of Drug Analysis 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joseph J PalamarDepartment of Population Health.ORCID 0000-0002-8565-9415
Nicole D FitzgeraldDepartment of Epidemiology.ORCID 0000-0001-7779-5874
Katherine M KeyesDepartment of Epidemiology.
Linda B CottlerDepartment of Epidemiology.

Funding

National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS) COVID-19 SupplementU01DA051126 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Linda B. Cottler, Joseph J Palamar · 2020 to 2026
$6.3M
UF Substance Abuse Training Center in Public HealthT32DA035167 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Linda B. Cottler · 2014 to 2026
$4.8M
Drug use among nightclub and dance festival attendees in New York CityR01DA044207 · NIDA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI PALAMAR, JOSEPH J · 2018 to 2021
$1.5M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA044207NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA035167NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA051126NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dance festival attendees are at high risk for consuming adulterated drugs. In recent years, drug checking studies have been conducted at various dance festivals to provide valuable harm reduction information to attendees regarding drug content. We conducted a review of the literature to determine the generalizability of findings to the target population of interest-festival attendees at risk for using adulterated drugs. Six published studies involving drug checking at festivals were reviewed. All relied on self-selected samples and male attendees were overrepresented based on previous research. Test methods, drugs tested, definitions of adulteration, and prevalence of adulteration varied across studies. Prevalence of detection of adulterants ranged from 11% to 55%. While the drug checking services described appear to have been beneficial for participants, results have limited generalizability to the target population. We recommend that researchers expand beyond the self-selection model in future studies and utilize recruitment methods that involve random sampling techniques such as systematic random sampling, stratified random sampling, or time-space sampling within festivals. We also recommend that individuals approached are surveyed for demographic characteristics, planned drug use at the festival, and willingness to test their drugs. These methods would help determine how representative the sample is compared to the target population and allow for more generalizable estimates. In conclusion, as these valuable harm reduction services expand, it may be possible to reach a wider portion of the population at risk and to obtain more generalizable estimates of engagement, adulteration, and reactions to learning one possesses adulterated drugs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

DancingHarm ReductionHolidaysDrug ContaminationDrug OverdoseFemaleHumansIllicit DrugsMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesIllicit Drugs

Identifiers

PMID33600199
PMCPMC8282667
OpenAlexW3132348939

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.