A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Laboratory and clinical evaluation of on-site urine drug testing. | LitMetric

Laboratory and clinical evaluation of on-site urine drug testing.

Scand J Clin Lab Invest

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Section of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm , Sweden.

Published: November 2014

Aim: Products for on-site urine drug testing offer the possibility to perform screening for drugs of abuse directly at the point-of-care. This is a well-established routine in emergency and dependency clinics but further evaluation of performance is needed due to inherent limitations with the available products.

Methods: Urine drug testing by an on-site product was compared with routine laboratory methods. First, on-site testing was performed at the laboratory in addition to the routine method. Second, the on-site testing was performed at a dependency clinic and urine samples were subsequently sent to the laboratory for additional analytical investigation.

Results: The on-site testing products did not perform with assigned cut-off levels. The subjective reading between the presence of a spot (i.e. negative test result) being present or no spot (positive result) was difficult in 3.2% of the cases, and occurred for all parameters. The tests performed more accurately in drug negative samples (specificity 96%) but less accurately for detecting positives (sensitivity 79%). Of all incorrect results by the on-site test the proportion of false negatives was 42%. The overall agreement between on-site and laboratory testing was 95% in the laboratory study and 98% in the clinical study.

Conclusion: Although a high degree of agreement was observed between on-site and routine laboratory urine drug testing, the performance of on-site testing was not acceptable due to significant number of false negative results. The limited sensitivity of on-site testing compared to laboratory testing reduces the applicability of these tests.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2014.939995DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

on-site testing
20
urine drug
16
drug testing
16
on-site
11
testing
11
laboratory
8
on-site urine
8
routine laboratory
8
testing performed
8
laboratory testing
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!