Interference with testing for lysergic acid diethylamide

Clinical Chemistry

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 635-637

  Ritter, Detlef ^a,b   Cortese, Cherise M ^b   Edwards, Linda C ^a   Barr, Judith L ^b   Chung, Hyung D ^a,b   Long, Christopher ^b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

drug monitoring; drugs of abuse; gas chromatography mass spectrometry; immunoassay; LSD

Indexed keywords

LYSERGIDE;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG ABUSE; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG URINE LEVEL; EMERGENCY WARD; GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MENTAL PATIENT;

DOA;

EID: 0030910605     PISSN: 00099147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/43.4.635     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Liu RH. Evaluation of common immunoassay kits for effective workplace drug testing. In: Liu RH, Goldberger BA, eds. Handbook of workplace drug testing, 1st ed. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 1995:67-129.
2. Paul BD, Mitchell JM, Burbage R, Moy M, Sroka R. Gas chromatographic-electron-impact mass fragmentometric determination of lysergic acid diethylamide in urine. J Chromatogr 1990;529:103-12.
3. Mikkelsen SL, Ash KO. Adulterants causing false negatives in illicit drug testing. Clin Chem 1988;34:2333-6.
4. Warner A. Interference of common household chemicals in immunoassay methods for drugs of abuse. Clin Chem 1989;35:648-51.
5. Goodman and Gilman's The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 8th ed. New York: Pergamon Press, 1990:1655-735.
6. Hoyt DW, Finnigan RE, Nee T, Shults TF, Butler TJ. Drug testing in the workplace - are methods legally defensible? A survey of experts, arbitrators, and testing laboratories. JAMA 1987;258:504-9.
7. Ferrara SD, Tedeschi L, Frison G. Drug-of-abuse testing in urine: statistical approach and experimental comparison of immunochemical and Chromatographic techniques. J Anal Toxicol 1994;18:278-91.