Cited by 43

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Needles and the damage done: Reasons for admission and financial costs associated with injecting drug use in a Central London Teaching Hospital

Marks, Michael, Pollock, Emily, Armstrong, Margaret, Morris-Jones, Stephen, Kidd, Michael, Gothard, Philip, Noursadeghi, Mahdad, Doherty, Justin F.·2013·Journal of Infection

Abstract

Objectives To establish the clinical reasons for inpatient admissions among injecting drug users. To determine the frequency of behavioural issues during their care and to estimate the financial implications of injecting drug use to the health service. Methods Retrospective cohort study at University College London Hospital. Clinical, laboratory and financial data were extracted from case notes and electronic records. The cost of each admission was compared to the income received for the period of care. Results 124 injecting drug users required 191 admissions between 2005 and 2009. Skin and soft tissue infections (58%) and pneumonia (18%) were the commonest reasons for admission. Bacteraemia at admission was often not accompanied by an inflammatory response. Exposure to HIV (4%), hepatitis B (49%) and C (84%) was common. Drug misuse (16%) during admission was frequent. The cost to the NHS of treating soft tissue infections in drug users was approximately £77 million per annum. After a median follow-up of 40 months, 10 patients (8%) had died. All deaths were attributable to drug use. Conclusions Bacterial and viral infections are largely responsible for the significant mortality and morbidity of injecting drug users presenting to secondary care. The financial burden to the NHS is substantial.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jinf.2012.10.004

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Hay, 2009, Capture—recapture and anchored prevalence estimation of injecting drug users in England: national and regional estimates, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 18, 323, 10.1177/0962280208094687 · DOI
  2. Health Protection Agency, 2011, Unlinked anonymous HIV and viral hepatitis monitoring among IDUs: 2010 update [Internet]
  3. Islam, 2012, The accessibility, acceptability, health impact and cost implications of primary healthcare outlets that target injecting drug users: a narrative synthesis of literature, International Journal of Drug Policy, 23, 94, 10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.08.005 · DOI
  4. Beaufoy, 1993, Infections in intravenous drug users: a two-year review, The Canadian Journal of Infection Control, 8, 7
  5. Mertz, 2008, Appropriateness of antibiotic treatment in intravenous drug users, a retrospective analysis, BMC Infectious Diseases, 8, 42, 10.1186/1471-2334-8-42 · DOI
  6. Palepu, 2001, Hospital utilization and costs in a cohort of injection drug users, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165, 415
  7. Atkinson, 2009, The emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among injecting drug users, Journal of Infection, 58, 339, 10.1016/j.jinf.2009.03.004 · DOI
  8. Huang, 2008, Injecting drug use and community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 60, 347, 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Lamagni, 2008, Epidemic of severe Streptococcus pyogenes infections in injecting drug users in the UK, 2003–2004, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 14, 1002, 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.02076.x · DOI
  10. Hope, 2012, A decade of spore-forming bacterial infections among European injecting drug users: pronounced regional variation, American Journal of Public Health, 102, 122, 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300314 · DOI
  11. Schroeter, 2009, Outbreak of wound botulism in injecting drug users, Epidemiology & Infection, 137, 1602, 10.1017/S0950268809002544 · DOI
  12. Bargagli, 2006, Drug-related mortality and its impact on adult mortality in eight European countries, European Journal of Public Health, 16, 198, 10.1093/eurpub/cki168 · DOI
  13. Bone, 1992, Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine, Chest, 101, 1644, 10.1378/chest.101.6.1644 · DOI
  14. Miller, 2003, Staphylococcus aureus colonization in a community sample of HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected drug users, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 22, 463, 10.1007/s10096-003-0969-4 · DOI
  15. Turner, 2011, The impact of needle and syringe provision and opiate substitution therapy on the incidence of hepatitis C virus in injecting drug users: pooling of UK evidence, Addiction, 106, 1978, 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03515.x · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Marks, M., Pollock, E., Armstrong, M., Morris-Jones, S., Kidd, M., Gothard, P., Noursadeghi, M., & Doherty, J. F.
Venue
Journal of Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
95-102
ISSN
0163-4453
Cited by
43
References
2
Language
en
Funders
National Institute for Health Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Needles and the damage done: Reasons for admission and financial costs associated with injecting drug use in a Central London Teaching Hospital. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jinf.2012.10.004
The paper
Marks, M., Pollock, E., Armstrong, M., Morris-Jones, S., Kidd, M., Gothard, P., Noursadeghi, M., & Doherty, J. F. (2013). Needles and the damage done: Reasons for admission and financial costs associated with injecting drug use in a Central London Teaching Hospital. Journal of Infection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2012.10.004