Comparison of three commercial tests for buprenorphine screening in urine

Annals of Clinical Biochemistry

Volumn 44, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 563-565

  Leino, Aila ^a,b   Loo, Britt Marie ^a  

^a HOSPITAL DISTRICT OF SOUTHWEST FINLAND   (Finland)

^b TURKU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUPRENORPHINE; NARCOTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG SCREENING; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; URINALYSIS; ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; OPIATE ADDICTION; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; URINE;

BUPRENORPHINE; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; NARCOTICS; OPIOID-RELATED DISORDERS; REAGENT KITS, DIAGNOSTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUBSTANCE ABUSE DETECTION;

EID: 40349093383     PISSN: 00045632     EISSN: 00045632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/000456307782268129     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Gowing L, Ali R, White J. Buprenorphine for the management of opioid withdrawal. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006: 2: CD002025. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002025.pub3
2. Virtanen A. Drugs in Finland. 2004 National Report to the EMCDDA by the Finnish National Focal Point, the STAKES 2005. Statistical Report 2/2005
3. Henderson D, Friedman SB, Harris JD, Manning WB, Zoccoli MA. CEDIA® , a new homogeneous immunoassay system. Clin Chem 1986; 32: 1637-41
4. Bottcher M, Beck O. Evaluation of buprenorphine CEDIA assay versus GC-MS and ELISA using urine samples from patient in substitution treatment. J Anal Toxicol 2005; 29: 769-76
5. Buchan BJ, Walsh JM, Leaverton PE. Evaluation of the accuracy of on-site multi-analyte drug testing devices in the determination of the prevalence of illicit drugs in drivers. J Forensic Sci 1998; 43: 395-9
6. Leino A, Saarimies J, M Grönholm M, Lillsunde P. Comparison of eight commercial on-site screening devices for drug-of-abuse testing. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2001; 61: 325-32