Literature DB >> 12423006

A field evaluation of five on-site drug-testing devices.

Dennis J Crouch1, Rebekah K Hersch, Royer F Cook, James F Frank, J Michael Walsh.   

Abstract

A field study was performed at two police agencies to evaluate the utility and accuracy of five on-site urine analysis drug-testing devices when used to test driving under the influence (DUI) arrestees. The devices evaluated were AccuSign, Rapid Drug Screen, TesTcup-5, TesTstik, and Triage. Standard workplace screening cut-off concentrations were used and samples were tested for marijuana, cocaine and metabolites, amphetamine(s), opiates, and PCP (except opiates 300 ng/mL). Four-hundred arrestees were recruited at each site, informed consent was obtained, and urine specimens were collected from each subject for analysis. Police officers conducted the testing with one device, and trained technicians performed testing with the other four devices. The device used by the officers was rotated. All positive and 5% of the negative samples were confirmed in a laboratory using mass spectrometry. Laboratory cut-off concentrations were 4 ng/mL for carboxy-THC; 50 ng/mL for benzoylecgonine; 100 ng/mL for amphetamines; 50 ng/mL for opiates; and 5 ng/mL for PCP. Approximately one-third (36%) of the subjects tested positive for at least one drug. No randomly selected sample, that tested negative on the devices, tested positive at the laboratory. Based on 800 specimens, the false-negative rate for each device was < 1% for all drug classes. A false positive was defined as testing positive with the device, but the specimen did not contain detectable drug, given the study reporting criteria. For marijuana, benzoylecgonine, and opiates, all devices had < or = 0.25% false-positive rates. For PCP, the false-positive rates were all < or = 1.5%. For amphetamine(s), the false-positive rates were all < or = 1.75%. These rates were adjusted because study confirmation batteries included methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), additional over-the-counter sympathomimetic amines, hydromorphone, and hydrocodone. Without the expanded confirmation battery, false-positive rates approached 4% (Triage) for amphetamines and were > or = 2.25% for opiates. Fifty to 90% of the positive amphetamine(s) samples contained MDMA. A similar percentage of the opiate-positive samples contained hydromorphone or hydrocodone. When additional drugs were included in the confirmation testing, it was concluded that the on-site urine analysis drug-testing results were useful in DUI investigations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12423006     DOI: 10.1093/jat/26.7.493

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anal Toxicol        ISSN: 0146-4760            Impact factor:   3.367


  7 in total

1.  Probe Heating Method for the Analysis of Solid Samples Using a Portable Mass Spectrometer.

Authors:  Shun Kumano; Masuyuki Sugiyama; Masuyoshi Yamada; Kazushige Nishimura; Hideki Hasegawa; Hidetoshi Morokuma; Hiroyuki Inoue; Yuichiro Hashimoto
Journal:  Mass Spectrom (Tokyo)       Date:  2015-04-25

Review 2.  Biomarkers of exposure to new and emerging tobacco delivery products.

Authors:  Suzaynn F Schick; Benjamin C Blount; Peyton Jacob; Najat A Saliba; John T Bernert; Ahmad El Hellani; Peter Jatlow; R Steven Pappas; Lanqing Wang; Jonathan Foulds; Arunava Ghosh; Stephen S Hecht; John C Gomez; Jessica R Martin; Clementina Mesaros; Sanjay Srivastava; Gideon St Helen; Robert Tarran; Pawel K Lorkiewicz; Ian A Blair; Heather L Kimmel; Claire M Doerschuk; Neal L Benowitz; Aruni Bhatnagar
Journal:  Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 5.464

3.  A pilot study of the accuracy of onsite immunoassay urinalysis of illicit drug use in seriously mentally ill outpatients.

Authors:  Michael G McDonell; Frank Angelo; Andrea Sugar; Christina Rainey; Debra Srebnik; John Roll; Robert Short; Richard K Ries
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 3.829

4.  False negative result for amphetamines on the Triage Drug of Abuse panel? The cause of the unusual phenomenon with experimental analyses.

Authors:  Wakako Hikiji; Keiko Kudo; Shinji Sato; Yosuke Usumoto; Akiko Tsuji; Noriaki Ikeda
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 2.686

5.  idPAD: Paper Analytical Device for Presumptive Identification of Illicit Drugs.

Authors:  Tracy-Lynn E Lockwood; Tammy X Leong; Sarah L Bliese; Alec Helmke; Alex Richard; Getahun Merga; John Rorabeck; Marya Lieberman
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 1.832

Review 6.  Policing, massive street drug testing and poly-substance use chaos in Georgia - a policy case study.

Authors:  David Otiashvili; Mzia Tabatadze; Nino Balanchivadze; Irma Kirtadze
Journal:  Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy       Date:  2016-01-16

7.  Triage DOA® versus INSTANT-VIEW M-1® in Urinary Drug Screening for Acute Drug Poisoning: A Prospective Cross-sectional Study.

Authors:  Aoi Fujikawa; Sachiko Ohde; Norio Otani; Shinichi Ishimatsu
Journal:  Intern Med       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 1.271

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.