Dataset Information

Sensitivity of self-reported opioid use in case-control studies: Healthy individuals versus hospitalized patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several case-control studies have shown associations between the risk of different cancers and self-reported opium use. Inquiring into relatively sensitive issues, such as the history of drug use, is usually prone to information bias. However, in order to justify the findings of these types of studies, we have to quantify the level of such a negative bias. In current study, we aimed to evaluate sensitivity of self-reported opioid use and suggest suitable types of control groups for case-control studies on opioid use and the risk of cancer.

Methods

In order to compare the validity of the self-reported opioid use, we cross-validated the response of two groups of subjects 1) 178 hospitalized patients and 2) 186 healthy individuals with the results of their tests using urine rapid drug screen (URDS) and thin layer chromatography (TLC). The questioners were asked by trained interviewers to maximize the validity of responses; healthy individuals were selected from the companions of patients in hospitals.

Results

Self-reported regular opioid use was 36.5% in hospitalized patients 19.3% in healthy individuals (p-value> 0.001).The reported frequencies of opioid use in the past 72 hours were 21.4% and 11.8% in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals respectively. Comparing their responses with the results of urine tests showed a sensitivity of 77% and 69% among hospitalized patients and healthy individuals for self-reports (p-value = 0.4). Having corrected based on the mentioned sensitivities; the frequency of opioid regular use was 47% and 28% in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals, respectively. Regular opioid use among hospitalized patients was significantly higher than in healthy individuals (p-value> 0.001).

Conclusion

Our findings showed that the level of opioid use under-reporting in hospitalized patients and healthy individuals was considerable but comparable. In addition, the frequency of regular opioid use among hospitalized patients was significantly higher than that in the general population. Altogether, it seems that, without corrections for these differences and biases, the results of many studies including case-control studies on opioid use might distort findings substantially.

SUBMITTER: Rashidian H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5576653 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:It has been suggested that coffee may affect the gut-brain axis with conflicting outcomes. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the type or temperature of coffee consumed will have a different impact on the gut-brain axis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of acute coffee consumption on the following: 1. self-reported GI symptoms and salivary gastrin, 2. stress indices [salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase (sAA)] and psychometric measures, and 3. blood pressure (BP), in healthy, daily coffee consuming individuals in non-stressful conditions.This was a randomized, double blind, crossover clinical trial, in which 40 healthy individuals (20 men, 20 women), 20-55 years of age, randomly consumed four 200 ml coffee beverages containing 160 mg caffeine (hot and cold instant coffee, cold espresso, hot filtered coffee), 1 week apart. Salivary samples and psychometric questionnaires were collected at baseline and post-coffee consumption at 15,30, and 60 min for salivary gastrin and sAA measurements and at 60,120, and 180 min for cortisol measurements. BP was measured at beginning and end of each intervention. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02253628 RESULTS: Coffee consumption significantly increased sAA activity (P = 0.041), with significant differences only between cold instant and filter coffee at 15 and 30 min post-consumption (P < 0.05). Coffee temporarily increased salivary gastrin, without differences between coffee types. Coffee did not affect salivary cortisol or self-reported anxiety levels. Coffee consumption significantly increased BP, within the healthy physiological levels, in a gender specific manner at the end of the experimental periods, without differences between coffee types.Acute coffee consumption in non-stressful conditions activated sAA and BP but not salivary cortisol, indicating activation of the sympathetic nervous system. Post-coffee sAA increase without a concomitant cortisol increase may also indicate that coffee may have some anti-stress properties.

Project description:BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:Bland-Altman methods for assessing the agreement between two measures are highly cited. However, these methods may often not be used to assess agreement, and when used, they are not always presented or interpreted correctly. Our objective was to evaluate the use and the quality of reporting of Bland-Altman analyses in studies that compare self-reported with measured weight and height. METHODS:We evaluated the use of Bland-Altman methods in 394 published articles that compared self-reported and measured weight and height data for adolescents or adults. Six reporting criteria were developed: assessment of the normality of the distribution of differences, a complete and correctly labeled Bland-Altman plot displaying the mean difference and limits of agreement (LOA), numerical values and confidence intervals, standard errors, or standard deviations for mean difference, numerical values of LOA, confidence intervals for LOA, and prespecified criteria for acceptable LOA. RESULTS:Only 72/394 (18%) studies comparing self-reported with measured weight and height or BMI used some form of Bland-Altman analyses. No study using Bland-Altman analyses satisfied more than four of the six criteria. Of the 72 studies, 64 gave mean differences along with confidence intervals or standard deviations, 55 provided complete Bland-Altman plots that were appropriately labeled and described, 37 provided numerical values for LOA, 4 reported that they examined the normality of the distribution of differences, 3 provided confidence intervals for LOA, and 3 had prespecified criteria for agreement. CONCLUSIONS:Bland-Altman methods appear to be infrequently used in studies comparing measured with self-reported weight, height, or BMI, and key information is missing in many of those that do use Bland-Altman methods. Future directions would be defining acceptable LOA values and improving the reporting and application of Bland-Altman methods in studies of self-reported anthropometry.

Project description:BackgroundOpioids are routinely prescribed after hand surgery, but there is limited research about surgeon variation in prescription patterns and attitudes toward the use of these drugs. We sought to examine hand surgeons' attitudes, beliefs, and self-reported practices regarding the use of opioids.MethodsAn invitation to an online cross-sectional survey was sent to 3225 hand surgeons across the USA via email, of whom 502 (16 %) responded. We used previously published data to compare hand surgeons' concerns about potential adverse opioid-related events with those of primary care physicians.ResultsMost hand surgeons (76 %) reported prescription opioid abuse to be a big or moderate problem in their communities, and 89 % felt that opioids are overused to treat pain. Nearly all (94 %) were very or moderately confident about their clinical skills regarding opioid prescribing, but only 40 % reported always or often asking about a history of opioid abuse or dependence before scheduling surgery. Most (75 %) were very or moderately comfortable refilling opioid prescriptions following fracture surgery, while only 13 % were comfortable doing so after minor elective surgery. Nearly half (49 %) reported being less likely to prescribe opioids compared to 1 year ago, and 67 % believed that the best approach to reduce postoperative opioid use is to discuss pain management and expectations with the patient before surgery. Compared to primary care physicians, hand surgeons were less likely to be concerned about potential adverse patient (e.g., opioid-related addiction [67 vs. 84 %], death [37 vs. 70 %], sedation [57 vs. 71 %]) and prescriber (e.g., malpractice claim [22 vs. 46 %], prosecution [15 vs. 45 %], censure by state medical boards [16 vs. 44 %]) outcomes.ConclusionHand surgeons have become aware of the extent and public health implications of the prescription opioid epidemic, and many are taking an active role by reducing their reliance on these drugs. Additional research using pharmacy data is needed to confirm the extent to which hand surgeons' reliance on prescription opioids is actually decreasing.