Cited by 55HIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskTattoo and Body Piercing ComplicationsIntramuscular injections and effects

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 19 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

High Rates of Abscesses and Chronic Wounds in Community-Recruited Injection Drug Users and Associated Risk Factors

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Abscesses and chronic wounds are common among injection drug users (IDUs) though chronic wounds have been understudied. We assessed the risk factors associated with both acute and chronic wounds within a community-based population of IDUs frequenting the Baltimore City Needle Exchange Program (BNEP). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of BNEP clients aged 18 years or more who completed an in-person survey regarding active or prior wounds including abscesses (duration <8 weeks) and chronic wounds (duration ≥8 weeks), injection practices, and skin care. Factors associated with wounds were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of the 152 participants, 63.2% were men, 49.3% were white, 44.7% were African American, 34.9% had any type of current wound, 17.8% had an active abscess, and 19.7% had a current chronic wound. Abscesses were more common in women (odds ratio [OR], 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-5.97) and those reporting skin-popping (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 1.85-15.67). In a multivariate model, risk factors for an abscess included injecting with a family member/partner (adjusted OR [AOR], 4.06; 95% CI, 0.99-16.58). In a multivariable analysis of current chronic wounds, cleaning skin with alcohol before injection was protective (AOR, 0.061; 95% CI, 0.0064-0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Abscesses and chronic wounds were prevalent among a sample of IDUs in Baltimore. Abscesses were associated with injection practices, and chronic wounds seemed linked to varying skin and tool cleaning practices. There is a pressing need for wound-related education and treatment efforts among IDUs who are at greatest risk for skin-related morbidity.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a cross-sectional survey of 152 Baltimore needle-exchange clients, 34.9% had a current wound, 17.8% had an active abscess, and 19.7% had a current chronic wound. Abscesses were linked to injection practices such as skin-popping, kicking, and injecting with a family member/partner, while chronic wounds were associated with longer injection history and certain skin/needle-cleaning behaviors.

Key findings

  • Current wound prevalence was 34.9%; active abscesses 17.8% (n=27) and current chronic wounds 19.7% (n=30). Lifetime wound-related skin disease burden was 75.0% (114/152).
  • Current abscess on univariate analysis was associated with female gender (OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.10–5.97), skin-popping (OR 5.38; 95% CI 1.85–15.67), injecting with a family member/partner (OR 3.78; 95% CI 1.38–10.31), and kicking occasionally (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.02–9.37). In multivariable analysis, injecting with a family member/partner (AOR 4.06; 95% CI 0.99–16.58) and kicking occasionally (AOR 4.88; 95% CI 1.09–21.90) remained associated.
  • Current chronic wound in multivariable analysis was protective when cleaning skin with water (AOR 0.018; 95% CI 0.00054–0.60) or alcohol (AOR 0.061; 95% CI 0.0064–0.58) before injection; associated factors included Native American identity (AOR 128.1; 95% CI 1.86–8800.41), injection history ≥15 years (AOR 76.2; 95% CI 1.55–3753.56), and cleaning needles with bleach/bleach-water vs water only (AOR 17.9; 95% CI 2.14–149.95).
  • Among women, reusing needles 5–7 times was associated with 18.0-fold greater odds of current abscess vs never reusing (95% CI 1.37–235.69); skin-popping among women was associated with current abscess (OR 8.22; 95% CI 1.72–39.35).

Methods

  • Cross-sectional study of Baltimore City Needle Exchange Program (BNEP) clients aged ≥18 years, regardless of wound status, recruited May 2012–November 2013 at five exchange sites (most from Sites A and B). Participants completed an in-person paper survey (~20 minutes) on demographics, injection behaviors, pre-injection skin care, wound history/care, and medical history; current abscesses and wounds were visually verified by study staff.
  • Wound definitions: chronic wounds were open, non-healing skin areas present ≥8 weeks; abscesses were swollen, red, painful lumps under the skin lasting <8 weeks.
  • Analysis used Stata 12 with χ2, univariate, multivariable, and multinomial logistic regression; p≤0.05 was significant, covariates with p≤0.15 on univariate testing entered multivariable models, and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were reported.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the survey was primarily conducted in the morning and early afternoons, potentially excluding more nocturnal clients; participants were active BNEP members and may differ from IDUs not accessing harm reduction services; the survey-based design produced associations requiring further study; and data relied on self-report.
  • Evident from the text: the cross-sectional design cannot establish temporality or causality between injection/skin-care behaviors and wound outcomes.
  • Evident from the text: some subgroup estimates are imprecise with very wide confidence intervals (e.g., Native American identity AOR 128.1, 95% CI 1.86–8800.41; injection history ≥15 years AOR 76.2, 95% CI 1.55–3753.56), and multiple comparisons were performed without stated adjustment.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/adm.0000000000000093

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

34 Own result · 6 Own interpretation · 5 Own method · 4 No full text of the sources · 2 Sources not found · 2 Check pending · 1 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given

Verify all 4 references — free account

Show all 43 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 3
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 11
12 of 12
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Chronic wounds, and acute and chronic wounds jointly, have been understudied in IDU populations.

    “though chronic wounds have been understudied”
    “The prevalence of and risk factors for chronic ulcers in the IDU population has not been well studied or evaluated concurrently with risk factors for abscesses in this population.”
    “Chronic wounds in IDUs in particular have been understudied.”
1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Smith, M. E., Robinowitz, N., Chaulk, P., & Johnson, K. E.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Kristine E.
Venue
Journal of Addiction Medicine
Published
2015-03
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
87-93
ISSN
1932-0620 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2330700047
Cited by
55
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Addiction Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (1P30A1094189)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (K23AI083100)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Tattoo and Body Piercing Complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Intramuscular injections and effects
Keywords
people who inject drugs, abscess, chronic wounds, needle exchange programs, skin popping, injection practices, skin care, risk factors
MeSH terms
Abscess, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Wounds and Injuries, Baltimore, Substance Abuse, Intravenous, Prevalence, Drug Users, Protective Factors

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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