Temporal and gender trends in concordance of urine drug screens and self-reported use in cocaine treatment studies

Journal of Addiction Medicine

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 211-217

  Schuler, Megan S ^a   Lechner, William V ^a   Carter, Rickey E ^a   Malcolm, Robert ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cocaine; Concordance; Gender; Sensitivity; Temporal effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 76649106773     PISSN: 19320620     EISSN: 19353227     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ADM.0b013e3181a0f5dc     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Preston KL, Silverman K, Schuster CR, et al. Comparison of selfreported drug use with quantitative and qualitative urinalysis for assessment of drug use in treatment studies. In: Harrison L, Hughes A, eds. The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates (NIDA Research Monograph 167). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1997:130-412.
2. Magura S, Kang SY. Validity of self-reported drug use in high risk populations: A meta-analytical review. Subst Use Misuse. 1996;31: 1131-1153.
3. Somoza E, Somoza P, Lewis D, et al. The SRPHK1 outcome measure for cocaine-dependence trials combines self-report, urine benzoylecgonine levels, and the concordance between the two to determine a cocaine-use status for each study day. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;93: 132-140.
4. Hser YI. Self-reported drug use: results of selected empirical investigations of validity. In: Harrison L, Hughes A, eds. The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates (NIDA Research Monograph 167). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1997:320-343.
5. Tassiopoulos K, Bernstein J, Heeren T, et al. Predictors of disclosure of continued cocaine use. Addict Behav. 2006;31:80-89.
6. Greenfield L, Bigelow GE, Brooner RK. Validity of intravenous drug abusers' self-reported changes in hi-HIV-risk drug use behaviors. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1995;39:91-98.
7. Hoffman JA, Wish ED, Koman JJ, et al. Self-reported drug use compared with hair analysis and urinalysis. Paper presented at the College on Problems of Drug Dependence 56th Annual Scientific Meeting, Palm Beach, FL. 1994, June 18-23.
8. Hindin R, McCusker J, Vickers-Lahti M, et al. Radioimmunoassay of hair for determination of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana exposure: Comparison with self-report. Int J Addict. 1994;29:771-789.
9. Baumgartner AM, Jones PF, Baumgartner WA, et al. Radioimmunoassay of hair for determining opiate abuse histories. J Nucl Med. 1979; 20:748-752.
10. Myrick H, Henderson S, Danksy B, et al. Clinical characteristics of under-reporters on urine drug screens in a cocaine treatment study. Am J Addict. 2002;11:255-261.
11. Nyamathi A, Leake B, Longshore D, et al. Reliability of homeless women's reports: Concordance between hair assay and self-report of cocaine use. Nur Res. 2001;50:165-171.
12. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, et al. Structured Clinical Interview of Axis I DSM-IV Disorders-Patient Edition (With Psychotic Screen) (SCID-I/P w/ Psychotic Screen, Version 2.0). New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York Stat Psychiatric Institute; 1996.
13. Sobell LC, Sobell MB. Timeline follow back: A technique for assessing self-reported ethanol consumption. In: Allen J, Litten R, eds. Techniques to Assess Alcohol Consumption. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc; 1992: 19-28.
14. McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized Linear Models. London: Chapman & Hall; 1989.
15. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT 9.1 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1989.
16. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13-22.
17. Hedden SL, Woolson RF, Malcolm J. A comparison of missing data methods for hypothesis tests of the treatment effect in substance abuse clinical trials: A Monte-Carlo simulation study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2008;3:13.
18. Morral AR, McCaffrey D, Iguchi MY. Hardcore drug users claim to be occasional drug users: Drug use frequency underreporting. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000;57:193-202.