Evaluation of on-site oral fluid screening using Drugwipe-5+®, RapidSTAT® and Drug Test 5000® for the detection of drugs of abuse in drivers

Wille, Sarah M. R.; Samyn, Nele; Ramírez-Fernández, Maria del Mar; Boeck, Gert De

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.10.012

Cited by 88 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be justified by the higher prevalence rates for the more critical analytes (cocaine, THC and MDMA) found in the present study, that allowed a more complete evaluation of the kits compared to the previous studies, where cocaine and methamphetamines were detected in few cases and THC evaluation was performed at coffee-shops, thus with very high concentrations of cannabinoids [7]. The results of Drugtest 5000 1 kit are comparable with those reported by Wille et al, in which the new version of the device with a lower cut-off at 5 ng/mL [10] for THC was employed.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Since at the startup of the present project (December 2009), other studies based on blood [8][9][10][11] or OF and blood analysis [12][13][14][15][16][17] reported the correlation between blood and OF concentrations and the respective detection windows, the present study was instead designed to analyze the same OF sample for both screening and confirmatory analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis

Rossi

Castrignanò

Anzillotti

et al. 2012

Forensic Science International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis

Rossi

Castrignanò

Anzillotti

et al. 2012

Forensic Science International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Wille et coll., dans un article paru en 2010 [17] indiquent que le dispositif Mavand RAPIDSTAT a donné lieu à 27 vrais positifs et 9 faux positifs sur 58 sang analysés. Ceci correspond à une VPP de 75 %.…”

Section: Cannabinoïdesunclassified

Usage de stupéfiants au volant, bilan des résultats de deux laboratoires (CHRU Lille et IRCGN)

Perrin

Halart

Coste³

et al. 2012

Ann Toxicol Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Résumé -Objectif :Étude rétrospective des résultats des analyses de confirmation pratiquées par deux laboratoires, étude des performances des tests de dépistage (calcul de la valeur prédictive positive), évaluation de la fiabilié diagnostique des dépistages confirmés pour l'usage de stupéfiants au volant. Matériel et méthodes : Compilation des résultats des analyses de confirmation par CPG-SM pour quatre grandes familles de stupéfiants réalisées après dépistage urinaire ou dans le fluide oral, ou en l'absence de dépistage. Résultats : La substance illicite la plus fréquemment mise en évidence chez les conducteurs dépistés est le cannabis, avec une distribution (parmi les dossiers soumis à confirmation) de 51 % au CHRU de Lille (458 confirmations pour 895 dossiers) et 87 % à l'IRCGN (679 confirmations pour 779 dossiers). Les amphétamines et dérivés se classent au deuxième rang avec 6 % de prévalence parmi les échantillons analysés par le CHRU de Lille (soit 57 dossiers sur 895), alors qu'à l'IRCGN ce sont les opiacés (15 dossiers sur 108 confirmations). Les dossiers dans lesquels de la morphine a été mise en évidence restent difficiles à interpréter en termes d'usage de stupéfiants en raison du facteur de confusion lié à l'administration à visée antalgique ou la prise d'opiacés licites. Conclusion : Les tests de dépistage urinaire ou dans le fluide oral sont aptes à repérer les conducteurs ayant fait usage de stupéfiants. Le cannabis est la substance la plus fréquemment retrouvée, ce qui est en accord avec les données disponibles sur les habitudes de consommation en population générale. Mots clés :Conduite automobile, dépistage salive, valeur prédictive positive, distribution de la consommation de stupéfiants Abstract -Objective: Retrospective study of the results of confirmatory analysis performed by two laboratories in order to verify the overall performance of the screening tests (calculation of the positive predictive value) and to avaluate the overall performance of roadside tests when they are found positive. Material and Methods: Data collection of GC-MS results for four major families of illicit substances, after urine or oral fluid screening tests, or in the case of no available screening data. Results: The illegal substance most frequently encountered in the tested drivers is cannabis, with a prevalence (among the analyzed samples) of 51% at the Lille University Hospital (458 confirmed cases out of 895) and 87% at the IRCGN (679 confirmed cases out of 779). At the Lille University Hospital amphetamines come second, with 6% prevalence among the analyzed samples (57 positives for 895 cases). The opiate family is found in 15 among 108 confirmation analyses at the IRCGN. Cases where the presence of morphine has been demonstrated remain difficult to interpret in regard to the use of street drugs because of confounding factors related to the administration of pain killers or the intake of licit opiates. Conclusion: Urine or oral fluid tests are therefore able to select drivers who have used narcotics before o...

show abstract

“…In most laboratories GC-MS is the method of choice for cocaine analysis. Alternative methods of analysis comprise immunological tests marketed for drug screening in urine [38], in saliva [39] and in serum [40,41]. The advantages of immunoassays are rapid results and the opportunity for large-scale screening by automation.…”

Section: Cocaine In Forensic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Tropane alkaloid analysis by chromatographic and electrophoretic techniques: An update

Aehle

Dräger

2010

Journal of Chromatography B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of on-site oral fluid screening using Drugwipe-5+®, RapidSTAT® and Drug Test 5000® for the detection of drugs of abuse in drivers

Cited by 88 publications

References 19 publications

Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis

Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis

Usage de stupéfiants au volant, bilan des résultats de deux laboratoires (CHRU Lille et IRCGN)

Tropane alkaloid analysis by chromatographic and electrophoretic techniques: An update

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About