A Systematic Review of Abuse or Overprescription of Bupropion in American Prisons and a Synthesis of Case Reports on Bupropion Abuse in American Prison and Non-prison Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Illicit drug use is a huge problem in the US prison system. The objectives of this study are (1) to systematically investigate the prevalence of bupropion abuse in American prisons along with associated problems, and (2) to synthesize available case reports on this topic in both prison and non-prison settings. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, we searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) and used Covidence software for screening and reviewing identified articles. The final search date was February 21, 2023. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool were used for risk of bias assessment. We included original studies of populations aged 18 years and above in American prisons. We found 77 unique articles, none of which met our eligibility criteria. A synthesis of 22 case reports that we found showed bupropion abuse to be more common in young males, and intranasal administration was the most common method of abuse. More frequent desired and adverse effects were "cocaine-like highs" and seizures, respectively. Although several cases of bupropion abuse have been reported in US prisons, no study has been done to understand its prevalence and associated effects. The absence of original studies on bupropion abuse in US prisons and the observed patterns in this case report synthesis further highlight the need for a study to investigate the prevalence of bupropion abuse in US prisons. The limitations of this study include that it is an empty systematic review and the absence of all pertinent data in many of the included case reports. The authors did not receive any funding for this work. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42021227561.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".