Diagnostic efficiency of different amphetamine screening tests - The search for an optimal cutoff

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 42, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 1063-1065

  Savoca, Reto ^a   Rentsch, Katharina M ^b   Huber, Andreas R ^a  

^a CANTONAL HOSPITAL AARAU   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Amphetamine; Axsym; Cutoff; HPLC; Screening test

Indexed keywords

AMPHETAMINE;

ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT; ARTICLE; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROSS REACTION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DRUG ABUSE; GEOGRAPHY; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE VALUE; REHABILITATION CENTER; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; URINALYSIS; WORKPLACE;

AMPHETAMINE-RELATED DISORDERS; CHROMATOGRAPHY, HIGH PRESSURE LIQUID; CROSS REACTIONS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FLUORESCENCE POLARIZATION IMMUNOASSAY; HUMANS; REFERENCE VALUES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WORKPLACE;

EID: 4744344181     PISSN: 14346621     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2004.213     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Draft #4: Mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs. http://workplace.samhsa.gov/ResourceCenter/DT/FA/GuidelinesDraft4.htm. Accessed January 2004.
2. Substance abuse and mental health administration. Mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs. Fed Regist 1994;59:29908-31.
3. Guidelines of the European Workplace Drug Testing Society (EWDTS). http://www.ewdts.org. Accessed February 2004.
4. Drugs of abuse testing guidelines. http://www.ichv.ch/AGSA/default.htm. Accessed January 2004.
5. de la Torre R, Badia R, Gonzalez G, Garcia M, Pretel MJ, Farre M, et al. Cross-reactivity of stimulants found in sports drug testing by two fluorescence polarization immunoassays. J Anal Toxicol 1996;20:165-70.
6. Dietzen DJ, Ecos K, Friedman D, Beason S. Positive predictive values of abused drug immunoassays on the Beckman Synchron in a veteran population. J Anal Toxicol 2001;25:174-8.
7. Baker DP, Murphy MS, Shepp PF, Royo VR, Caldarone ME, Escoto B, et al. Evaluation of the Abuscreen ONLINE assay for amphetamines on the Hitachi 737: comparison with EMIT and GC/MS methods. J Forensic Sci 1995;40:108-12.
8. Oyler JM, Cone EJ, Joseph RE Jr, Moolchan ET, Huestis MA. Duration of detectable methamphetamine and amphetamine excretion in urine after controlled oral administration of methamphetamine to humans. Clin Chem 2002;48:1703-14.
9. Wilson JF, Smith BL. Evaluation of detection techniques and laboratory proficiency in testing for drugs of abuse in urine: an external quality assessment scheme using clinically realistic urine samples. Ann Clin Biochem 1999;36:592-600.
10. Smith-Kielland A, Olsen KM, Christophersen AS. False-positive results with Emit II amphetamine/methamphetamine assay in users of common psychotropic drugs. Clin Chem 1995;41:951-2.
11. Felscher D, Schulz K. Screening of amphetamine/methamphetamine and their derivatives in urine using FPIA and Triage 8 and the scope and limits of a subsequent identification by means of the REMEDi HS system. J Forensic Sci 2000;45:1327-31.
12. Demedts P, Wauters A, Franck F, Neels H. Evaluation of the REMEDI drug profiling system. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1994;32:409-17.
13. Schutz H, Erdmann F, Magiera ES, Weiler G. Analytical confirmation of error in false positive amphetamine immunoassays and results. Arch Kriminol 1998;201:93-6.