Cited by 261HIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

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

Open access
Maghsoudi, Nazlee, Tanguay, Justine, Scarfone, Kristy, Rammohan, Indhu, Ziegler, Carolyn, Werb, Dan, Scheim, Ayden I.·2022·Addiction

Abstract

Background and Aims: Drug 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. Methods: Systematic 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. Results: We 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. Conclusions: Drug 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/add.15734

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Stimulant use disorder treatment outcomes are affected by racial, ethnic, and gender disparities.

    “evidence suggests that treatment outcomes for StUD are impacted by racial-, ethnic-, and gender-related disparities.[206][207][208][209][210]”

    From The ASAM/AAAP Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Stimulant Use Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [207]

    The Results (Outcome measures; page not provided) discuss drug-checking services and drug-use behaviour, not treatment outcomes for stimulant use disorder. Searches for racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in those treatment outcomes found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [5]Barratt M, Kowalski M, Maier L, Ritter A. Global Review of Drug Checking Services Operating in 2017. Sydney, Australia: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney; 2018.
  2. [9]Leece P. Evidence Brief: Drug checking Services as a Harm Reduction Intervention. Cambridge, ON: Public Health Ontario; 2017.
  3. [16]Maghsoudi N, Werb D, Scheim A, Tanguay J, Ziegler C. The implementation of drug checking services for people who use drugs: a systematic review. PROSPERO: international prospective register of systematic reviews. 2018. CRD42018105366. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=105366 PMC9299873 34729849
  4. [57]Martins D, Valente H, Pires C. CHECK!NG: the last frontier for harm reduction in party settings. Saúde Sociedade. 2015; 24: 646– 60.
  5. [60]Sibbald K, Rushton W, King J, Charlton N. Adulterants in tablets sold as ecstasy in the US from 2009–2013. Clin Toxicol. 2014; 52: 704– 5.
  6. [66]Delile J‐M, Gachie J‐P. Ecstasy and risk reduction: The place of "testing" and substance analyses. Alcool Addictol. 2002; 24: 311– 8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maghsoudi, N., Tanguay, J., Scarfone, K., Rammohan, I., Ziegler, C., Werb, D., & Scheim, A. I.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Unity Health Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Werb, Dan
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-12-12
Volume
117
Issue
3
Pages
532-544
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W3208716282
Cited by
261
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 2
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
  • St. Michael's Hospital Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
drug checking, drug users, drug use behavior, new psychoactive substances, drug disposal, barriers to service use, chemical analysis of drugs
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Delivery of Health Care, Europe, Humans, North America, United States, Substance-Related Disorders, Drug Users

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