The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Drug checking services for people who use drugs: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700 · cited 1×
“…strategy was peer-reviewed by a librarian outside the review team using the guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) [17] We used medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords, adapted for each database, related to DCS (including service names from a global review of…”
Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12265 · Cited by 2,185 · cited 1×
“Key methodological limitations among studies reporting on behaviour of PWUD include cross-sectional designs and behavioural intention measures subject to the intention – behaviour gap [113].”
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006) · Lancaster University · doi:10.13140/2.1.1018.4643 · Cited by 2,070 · cited 1×
“We used narrative synthesis without meta-analysis [21] for data analysis.”
Ma, L.-L., Wang, Y.-Y., Yang, Z.-H., Huang, D., Weng, H., & Zeng, X.-T. (2020) · Military Medical Research · doi:10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8 · Cited by 1,648
Harper, L., Powell, J., & Pijl, E. M. (2017) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-017-0179-5 · Cited by 339
Peiper, N. C., Clarke, S. D., Vincent, L. B., Ciccarone, D., Kral, A. H., & Zibbell, J. E. (2019) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.08.007 · Cited by 317
Tupper, K. W., McCrae, K., Garber, I., Lysyshyn, M., & Wood, E. (2018) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.06.020 · Cited by 238
Instability of the ecstasy market and a new kid on the block: mephedrone
Brunt, T. M., der Meer, A. P.-V., Niesink, R. J. M., & van den Brink, W. (2010) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881110378370 · Cited by 216
Karamouzian, M., Dohoo, C., Forsting, S., McNeil, R., Kerr, T., & Lysyshyn, M. (2018) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-018-0252-8 · Cited by 209
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Kriener H, 2001, An Inventory of On‐site Pill‐testing Interventions in the EU
- Barratt M, 2018, Global Review of Drug Checking Services Operating in 2017
- 2018, Fentanyl Overdose Reduction Checking Analysis Study (FORECAST)
- Kerr T, 2017, Drug Checking as a Harm Reduction Intervention
- Leece P, 2017, Evidence Brief: Drug checking Services as a Harm Reduction Intervention
- 2014, National Institutes of Health. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross‐sectional Studies
- National Institutes of Health, 2014, Quality Assessment Tool for Before‐After (Pre‐Post) Studies With No Control Group
- Harm Reduction Coalition, 2018, Fentanyl Test Strip Pilot: San Francisco August 2017–January 2018
- Wijngaart G, 1998, Ecstasy and the Dutch Rave Scene: A Socio‐Epidemiological Study on the Nature and Extent of, and the Risks Involved in Using Ecstasy and Other Party Drugs at Dance Events
- Knox A. 2018/2019 Results, 2019, KnowYourStuffNZ
- Morris V, 2016, Results Report Satisfaction Survey and Change of Behaviour Échele Cabeza 2016
- Kriener H, 2005, Information, counselling and safer use measures at raves in Austria
- 2017/2018 Results, 2018, KnowYourStuffNZ
- Royal Society for Public Health, 2017, Drug Safety Testing at Festivals and Night Clubs
- Michelow W, 2015, ‘Start Small, Take it Easy’: Results from the ANKORS Harm Reduction Survey at the 2013 Shambhala Music Festival
- Korf D, 2003, Testing pills in the Netherlands: An investigation into strengthening the monitor for recreational drugs
- Koeter M, 1997, Get your ecstasy tested!: Evaluation of the test service of the Brijder Foundation
- Sibbald K, 2014, Adulterants in tablets sold as ecstasy in the US from 2009–2013, Clin Toxicol, 52, 704
- Delile J‐M, 2002, Ecstasy and risk reduction: The place of "testing" and substance analyses, Alcool Addictol, 24, 311
- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2013, The Challenge of New Psychoactive Substances
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Friedman, J. R., & Shover, C. L. (2023) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.16318 · Cited by 337
Wagner, K. D., Fiuty, P., Page, K. A., Tracy, E. C., Nocera, M., Miller, C. W., Tarhuni, L., & Dasgupta, N. (2023) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.110985 · Cited by 125
Xylazine in Overdose Deaths and Forensic Drug Reports in US States, 2019-2022
Cano, M. N., Daniulaityte, R., & Marsiglia, F. F. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50630 · Cited by 107
Imtiaz, S., Nafeh, F., Russell, C., Ali, F., Elton-Marshall, T., & Rehm, J. (2021) · Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy · doi:10.1186/s13011-021-00423-5 · Cited by 101
Nitazenes—Heralding a Second Wave for the UK Drug-Related Death Crisis?
Holland, A., Copeland, C. S., Shorter, G. W., Connolly, D. J., Wiseman, A., Mooney, J., Fenton, K., & Harris, M. (2024) · The Lancet Public Health · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(24)00001-x · Cited by 86
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC9299873
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
