CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8

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

Opioid-related emergency department visits and deaths after a harm-reduction intervention: a retrospective observational cohort time series analysis

Yeung, Matthew E.M., Lee, Chel Hee, Hartmann, Riley, Lang, Eddy·2023·CMAJ Open
DOI 10.9778/cmajo.20220104PMC PMC10287102
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.9778/cmajo.20220104

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1: Opioid-related emergency department visits after opening of supervised consumption sites. Piecewise 95% confidence interval (CI) in orange, ARIMAX 95% CI in pink. (A) Calgary: intervention on Oct. 1, 2017. (B) Edmonton: intervention on Mar. 1, 2018. (C) Red Deer: intervention on Oct. 1, 2018. (D) Lethbridge: intervention on Mar. 1, 2018. Note: ARIMAX = autoregressive integrated moving average with explanatory variable.
Figure 1: Opioid-related emergency department visits after opening of supervised consumption sites. Piecewise 95% confidence interval (CI) in orange, ARIMAX 95% CI in pink. (A) Calgary: intervention on Oct. 1, 2017. (B) Edmonton: intervention on Mar. 1, 2018. (C) Red Deer: intervention on Oct. 1, 2018. (D) Lethbridge: intervention on Mar. 1, 2018. Note: ARIMAX = autoregressive integrated moving average with explanatory variable.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2: Opioid-related deaths after opening of supervised consumption sites. Piecewise 95% confidence interval (CI) in orange, ARIMAX 95% CI in pink. (A) Calgary: intervention on Oct. 1, 2017. (B) Edmonton: intervention on Mar. 1, 2018. Note: ARIMAX = autoregressive integrated moving average with explanatory variable.
Figure 2: Opioid-related deaths after opening of supervised consumption sites. Piecewise 95% confidence interval (CI) in orange, ARIMAX 95% CI in pink. (A) Calgary: intervention on Oct. 1, 2017. (B) Edmonton: intervention on Mar. 1, 2018. Note: ARIMAX = autoregressive integrated moving average with explanatory variable.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3: Opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits and deaths after community-based naloxone program initiation. Piecewise 95% confidence interval (CI) in orange. ARIMAX 95% CI in pink. (A) Urban opioid-related ED visits: intervention on Jan. 1, 2016. (B) Rural opioid-related deaths: intervention on Jan. 1, 2016. (C) Urban opioid-related deaths: intervention on Jan. 1, 2016. (D) Rural opioid-related ED visits: intervention on Jan. 1, 2016. Note: ARIMAX = autoregressive integrated moving average with explanatory variable.
Figure 3: Opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits and deaths after community-based naloxone program initiation. Piecewise 95% confidence interval (CI) in orange. ARIMAX 95% CI in pink. (A) Urban opioid-related ED visits: intervention on Jan. 1, 2016. (B) Rural opioid-related deaths: intervention on Jan. 1, 2016. (C) Urban opioid-related deaths: intervention on Jan. 1, 2016. (D) Rural opioid-related ED visits: intervention on Jan. 1, 2016. Note: ARIMAX = autoregressive integrated moving average with explanatory variable.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Jalali, 2020, The opioid crisis: a contextual, social-ecological framework, Health Res Policy Syst, 18, 87, 10.1186/s12961-020-00596-8 · DOI
  2. Salmon, 2010, The impact of a supervised injecting facility on ambulance call-outs in Sydney, Australia, Addiction, 105, 676, 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02837.x · DOI
  3. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62353-7 · DOI
  4. Kennedy, 2022, Health impacts of a scale-up of supervised injection services in a Canadian setting: an interrupted time series analysis, Addiction, 117, 986, 10.1111/add.15717 · DOI
  5. 10.1136/bmj.f174 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Pearson H Gilligan M (May 27, 2021) Global News, Calgary’s supervised consumption site at Sheldon Chumir centre to close, services being relocated. updated 2021 May 28. Available: https://globalnews.ca/news/7900839/calgary-sheldon-chumir-supervised-consumption-site-relocation/ . accessed 2022 Apr. 4.
  7. Government of Alberta (2020) Impact: a socio-economic review of supervised consumption sites in Alberta (Edmonton, AB) Available: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/dfd35cf7-9955-4d6b-a9c6-60d353ea87c3/resource/11815009-5243-4fe4-8884-11ffa1123631/download/health-socio-economic-review-supervised-consumption-sites.pdf . accessed 2023 May 26.
  8. Livingston, 2021, Supervised consumption sites and crime: scrutinizing the methodological weaknesses and aberrant results of a government report in Alberta, Canada, Harm Reduct J, 18, 4, 10.1186/s12954-020-00456-2 · DOI
  9. So, 2020, The status of naloxone in community pharmacies across Canada, Can Pharm J (Ott), 153, 352, 10.1177/1715163520958435 · DOI
  10. Dong, 2012, Community-based naloxone: a Canadian pilot program, Can J Addict, 3, 4
  11. Freeman, 2015, A randomized trial comparing live and telemedicine deliveries of an imagery-based behavioral intervention for breast cancer survivors: reducing symptoms and barriers to care, Psychooncology, 24, 910, 10.1002/pon.3656 · DOI
  12. Marshall, 2021, The impact of supervised consumption services on fentanyl-related deaths: lessons learned from Alberta’s provincial data, Can J Psychiatry, 66, 1096, 10.1177/0706743721999571 · DOI
  13. Jozaghi, 2015, Examining the potential role of a supervised injection facility in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to avert HIV among people who inject drugs, Int J Health Policy Manag, 4, 373, 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.73 · DOI
  14. 10.1503/cmaj.080808 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/add.14664 · DOI
  16. Hood, 2019, The projected costs and benefits of a supervised injection facility in Seattle, WA, USA, Int J Drug Policy, 67, 9, 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.12.015 · DOI
  17. Irwin, 2017, Mitigating the heroin crisis in Baltimore, MD, USA: a cost-benefit analysis of a hypothetical supervised injection facility, Harm Reduct J, 14, 29, 10.1186/s12954-017-0153-2 · DOI
  18. Kennedy, 2019, Supervised injection facility use and all-cause mortality among people who inject drugs in Vancouver, Canada: a cohort study, PLoS Med, 16, e1002964, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002964 · DOI
  19. Bardwell, 2021, Women’s multiple uses of an overdose prevention technology to mitigate risks and harms within a supportive housing environment: a qualitative study, BMC Womens Health, 21, 51, 10.1186/s12905-021-01196-6 · DOI
  20. Jackson J (2020) A cost analysis of overdose management at a supervised consumption site in Calgary, Canada (Qeios, London (UK)). · DOI
  21. Day, 2022, Virtual opioid agonist treatment: Alberta’s virtual opioid dependency program and outcomes, Addict Sci Clin Pract, 17, 40, 10.1186/s13722-022-00323-4 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/s2468-2667(18)30044-6 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/add.13326 · DOI
  24. 10.24095/hpcdp.38.6.02 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Yeung, M. E. M., Lee, C. H., Hartmann, R., & Lang, E.
Venue
CMAJ Open
Publisher
CMA Impact Inc.
Published
2023-05
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
E537-E545
ISSN
2291-0026
DOI
10.9778/cmajo.20220104
PMC
PMC10287102
Cited by
8
References
2
Language
en

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