三项基础性执法毒品影响评估验证研究的方法质量。

Greg Kane
{"title":"三项基础性执法毒品影响评估验证研究的方法质量。","authors":"Greg Kane","doi":"10.1186/1477-5751-12-16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE) is a formal assessment of an impaired driving suspect, performed by a trained law enforcement officer who uses circumstantial facts, questioning, searching, and a physical exam to form an unstandardized opinion as to whether a suspect's driving was impaired by drugs. This paper first identifies the scientific studies commonly cited in American criminal trials as evidence of DIE accuracy, and second, uses the QUADAS tool to investigate whether the methodologies used by these studies allow them to correctly quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the DIEs currently administered by US law enforcement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three studies were selected for analysis. For each study, the QUADAS tool identified biases that distorted reported accuracies. The studies were subject to spectrum bias, selection bias, misclassification bias, verification bias, differential verification bias, incorporation bias, and review bias. The studies quantified DIE performance with prevalence-dependent accuracy statistics that are internally but not externally valid.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The accuracies reported by these studies do not quantify the accuracy of the DIE process now used by US law enforcement. These studies do not validate current DIE practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":73849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of negative results in biomedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828623/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The methodological quality of three foundational law enforcement Drug Influence Evaluation validation studies.\",\"authors\":\"Greg Kane\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1477-5751-12-16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE) is a formal assessment of an impaired driving suspect, performed by a trained law enforcement officer who uses circumstantial facts, questioning, searching, and a physical exam to form an unstandardized opinion as to whether a suspect's driving was impaired by drugs. This paper first identifies the scientific studies commonly cited in American criminal trials as evidence of DIE accuracy, and second, uses the QUADAS tool to investigate whether the methodologies used by these studies allow them to correctly quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the DIEs currently administered by US law enforcement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three studies were selected for analysis. For each study, the QUADAS tool identified biases that distorted reported accuracies. The studies were subject to spectrum bias, selection bias, misclassification bias, verification bias, differential verification bias, incorporation bias, and review bias. The studies quantified DIE performance with prevalence-dependent accuracy statistics that are internally but not externally valid.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The accuracies reported by these studies do not quantify the accuracy of the DIE process now used by US law enforcement. These studies do not validate current DIE practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of negative results in biomedicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828623/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of negative results in biomedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5751-12-16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of negative results in biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5751-12-16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:药物影响评估(DIE)是由一名训练有素的执法人员对驾驶能力受损的嫌疑人进行的正式评估,执法人员通过间接事实、询问、搜查和身体检查,对嫌疑人的驾驶是否受到药物影响形成非标准化的意见。本文首先确定了在美国刑事审判中常被引用作为DIE准确性证据的科学研究,其次使用QUADAS工具调查这些研究使用的方法是否能够正确量化美国执法部门目前使用的DIE的诊断准确性:我们选择了三项研究进行分析。对于每项研究,QUADAS 工具都发现了歪曲报告准确性的偏差。这些研究存在频谱偏差、选择偏差、误分类偏差、验证偏差、差异验证偏差、纳入偏差和审查偏差。这些研究通过依赖于流行率的准确性统计来量化 DIE 的性能,这些统计具有内部有效性,但不具有外部有效性:结论:这些研究报告的准确性并不能量化美国执法部门目前使用的 DIE 流程的准确性。这些研究并未验证当前的 DIE 实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The methodological quality of three foundational law enforcement Drug Influence Evaluation validation studies.

Background: A Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE) is a formal assessment of an impaired driving suspect, performed by a trained law enforcement officer who uses circumstantial facts, questioning, searching, and a physical exam to form an unstandardized opinion as to whether a suspect's driving was impaired by drugs. This paper first identifies the scientific studies commonly cited in American criminal trials as evidence of DIE accuracy, and second, uses the QUADAS tool to investigate whether the methodologies used by these studies allow them to correctly quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the DIEs currently administered by US law enforcement.

Results: Three studies were selected for analysis. For each study, the QUADAS tool identified biases that distorted reported accuracies. The studies were subject to spectrum bias, selection bias, misclassification bias, verification bias, differential verification bias, incorporation bias, and review bias. The studies quantified DIE performance with prevalence-dependent accuracy statistics that are internally but not externally valid.

Conclusion: The accuracies reported by these studies do not quantify the accuracy of the DIE process now used by US law enforcement. These studies do not validate current DIE practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Blink rate is associated with drug-induced parkinsonism in patients with severe mental illness, but does not meet requirements to serve as a clinical test: the Curacao extrapyramidal syndromes study XIII. Work-focused cognitive behavioral intervention for psychological complaints in patients on sick leave due to work-related stress: Results from a randomized controlled trial. In vitro aggregating β-lactamase-polyQ chimeras do not induce toxic effects in an in vivo Caenorhabditis elegans model. Polymorphism rs547984 on human chromosome 1q43 is not associated with primary open angle glaucoma in a Saudi cohort. Behavioral and neural adaptations in response to five weeks of balance training in older adults: a randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1