Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34729849›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2022

Drug checking services for people who use drugs: a systematic review.

Nazlee Maghsoudi, Justine Tanguay, Kristy Scarfone, Indhu Rammohan, Carolyn Ziegler, Dan Werb, Ayden I Scheim

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
34.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

129 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 261 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. AB-MDMSBA-Not a Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonist.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nazlee MaghsoudiCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4970-6763
Justine TanguayMunk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kristy ScarfoneCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Indhu RammohanCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Carolyn ZieglerLibrary Services, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Dan WerbCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0614-9386
Ayden I ScheimCentre on Drug Policy Evaluation, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8498-9829
St. Michael's Hospital · CAToronto Public Health · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsDrug checking services provide people who use drugs with chemical analysis results of their drug samples while simultaneously monitoring the unregulated drug market. We sought to identify and synthesize literature on the following domains: (a) the influence of drug checking services on the behaviour of people who use drugs; (b) monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services; and (c) outcomes related to models of drug checking services.

methodsSystematic review. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Dissertations and Theses Global. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts or grey literature, published in any language since 1990 and including original data on the domains. We assessed risk of bias for quantitative peer-reviewed articles reporting on behaviour or models of drug checking services using National Institutes of Health tools.

resultsWe screened 2463 titles and abstracts and 156 full texts, with 90 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Most (n = 65, 72.2%) were from Europe and used cross-sectional designs (n = 79, 87.7%). Monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services (n = 63, 70%) was the most reported domain, followed by the influence of drug checking services on behaviour (n = 31, 34.4%), including intent to use, actual use and disposal of the drug, and outcomes related to models of drug checking services (n = 17, 18.9%). The most common outcome measures were detection of unexpected substances (n = 50, 55.6%), expected substances (n = 44, 48.9%), new psychoactive substances (n = 40, 44.4%) and drugs of concern (n = 32, 36.5%) by drug checking services.

conclusionsDrug checking services appear to influence behavioural intentions and the behaviour of people who use drugs, particularly when results from drug checking services are unexpected or drugs of concern. Monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services is well established in Europe, and increasingly in North America. Concerns about drug contents and negative health consequences facilitate the use of drug checking services; lack of concern; trust in drug sellers; lack of accessibility of drug checking services; and legal and privacy concerns are barriers to use.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareSubstance-Related DisordersCross-Sectional StudiesDrug UsersEuropeHumansNorth AmericaUnited StatesDrug checkingdrug safety testingdrug testingharm reductionpill testingstreet drug analysis

Identifiers

PMID34729849
PMCPMC9299873
OpenAlexW3208716282

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.