Substance use during pregnancy is common, as is biological testing that is intended to help identify prenatal exposures. However, there is no standardized requirement for biological testing with either maternal or newborn specimens, nor is there standardization related to when testing occurs, how frequently testing occurs, what specimen(s) to test, what substances to test for, or how to perform testing.
We review common specimen types tested to detect maternal and newborn substance exposure with a focus on urine, meconium, and umbilical cord tissue. We also review common analytical methods used to perform testing, including immunoassay, and mass spectrometry platforms. Considerations regarding the utilization of testing relative to the purpose of testing, the drug analyte(s) of interest, the specific testing employed, and the interpretation of results are emphasized to help guide decisions about clinical utilization of testing. We also highlight specific examples of unexpected results that can be used to guide interpretation and appropriate next steps.
There are strengths and limitations associated with all approaches to detecting substance exposure in pregnant persons as well as biological testing to evaluate a newborn with possible substance exposure. Standardization is needed to better inform decisions surrounding evaluation of substance exposures in pregnant people and newborns. If biological sampling is pursued, testing options and results must be reviewed in clinical context, acknowledging that false-positive and -negative results can and do occur.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
9%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
9%
Chemistry
1
9%
Medicine and Dentistry
1
9%
Unknown
7
64%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2024.
All research outputs
#22,881,732
of 28,008,529 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Chemistry
#7,706
of 8,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,443
of 363,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Chemistry
#49
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,008,529 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
