ArticleDrug and alcohol review2026
Accuracy of Patient-Reported Exposure to New Psychoactive Substances and Other Illicit Drugs in Australian Emergency Departments: Findings From the Emerging Drugs Network of Australia.
Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNew psychoactive substances (NPS) present a unique challenge in clinical, public health and drug-policy contexts. Continued diversity, unknown potency and often unintentional exposure can limit the accuracy of self-reported data. This study examined the accuracy of patient-reported NPS and illicit drug exposure in Australian emergency departments (ED).
methodsPatient-reported drug exposure, clinical and toxicology data were extracted from the Emerging Drugs Network of Australia Clinical Registry between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2024 for patients presenting with severe and/or unusual illicit drug toxicity in the ED. Blood samples were analysed using mass spectrometry. Agreement between reported and confirmed exposure was assessed using Cohen's kappa, sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios. Logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with discrepancies between reported and confirmed exposures.
resultsThere were 2044 presentations: 64.6% male, median age 33 years (Q1-Q3, 26-41). Complete agreement between patient-reported and confirmed drug exposures was 14.3% (n = 293). Agreement between reported and confirmed NPS exposure was poor (κ = 0.38). 1522 (74.5%) had more drugs detected than reported. Older age (OR 1.03 [CI 1.02, 1.04]) was associated with higher odds of discrepancy. Attendance from a licensed venue (OR 0.44 [CI 0.28, 0.70]) and Glasgow Coma Scale of 13-15 (OR 0.44 [CI 0.33, 0.57]) were associated with lower odds. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsPoor agreement between patient-reported and analytically confirmed drug exposure highlights the need for continued partnerships between EDs, clinical toxicologists, and forensic laboratories to identify substances involved in acute intoxications and support public health and harm reduction responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.