Table 4.
Differences between questionnaire and biomarkers in included studies (drugs of abuse)
| DRUGS OF ABUSE | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Author (reference, year) | Questionnaire (%positive result) | Biomarkers (%positive results) | Differences/Comments |
| Garcia Algar et al. (28) 2009 | Structured questionnaire COC (1.2%); THC (1.5%) MOR (0.3) MDMA (0.1%) | COC (2.6%); THC (5.3%) MOR (4.7) MDMA (0.1%) | - Hidden non-negligible drug consumption during pregnancy. |
| Bessa et al. (11) (2010) | Structured questionnaire (0%) | COC (1.7%) THC (4%) COC + THC (0.3%) | - Usefulness of hair analysis for diagnosis of drug use. Significanthidden undeclared use of drugs during pregnancy |
| Hutson et al. (22) (2010) | Structured questionnaire COC (0.4%); THC (0.15%) AMP (1%) | COC (2%) THC (2%) AMP (8%) | - The incidence was higher than those reported through questionnaire although significance could not be determined because of near-zero self-reporting levels |
| García-Serra et al. (16) (2011)Friguls et al. (26) (2012) |
Structured questionnaire COC (0.9%); THC (0.9%) | COC (6.4%) THC (10.3%) MDMA (0.9%) THC + COC (0.9%) THC + MDMA (0.9%) (Hair) COC (5.6%) THC (2.8%) (Meconium) |
- No correlation between self-reported prevalence of illicit drug use and analytical methods - Increased sensitivity of the hair against maternal meconium in detecting exposure to cannabis. In the case of cocaine sensitivity of both matrices was similar |
| Joya et al. (30) (2012) | N: 347 | COC (2.6%) | - Usefulness of hair analysis for diagnosis of drug use. Significant undeclared use of cocaine |
| Lendoiro et al. (18) (2013) (SP) | Structured questionnaire COC (4.3%); THC (2.9%) OP (1%) | COC (15.4%); THC (12.4%) OP (1%) | - The results of this study confirm the usefulness of maternal hair analysis to evidence drug use during pregnancy. - Hair analysis showed to be more sensitive than maternal interview for all drugs of abuse and medicines |