Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Forensic Sci Int. 2001 Sep 15;121(1-2):37-46.

A comparison between on-site immunoassay drug-testing devices and laboratory results.

Author information

Laboratory of Substance Abuse, National Public Health Institute, Mannerheimintie 166, 00300 Helsinki, Finland.


The aim with this study was to evaluate the accuracy of several on-site testing devices on the market. A part of this study is included in the European Union's (EU's) roadside testing assessment project (ROSITA). An other request for this kind of study came from the Finnish prison department in the Ministry of Justice. The evaluation was performed on both urine assays and oral fluid assays. The on-site test results were compared with laboratory results (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS)). The samples were tested on amphetamines (AMP), cannabinoids (THC), opiates (OPI) and cocaine metabolites (COC). Some of the tests also included a metamphetamine (MET) and a benzodiazepine (BZO) test. Both positive and negative samples were tested. A total of 800 persons and eight on-site devices for urine and two for oral fluid testing were included in this study. Good results were obtained for the urine on-site devices, with accuracies of 93-99% for amphetamines, 97-99% for cannabinoids, 94-98% for opiates and 90-98% for benzodiazepines. However, differences in the ease of performance and interpretation of test result were observed. It was possible to detect amphetamines and opiates in oral fluid by the used on-site devices, but the benzodiazepines and cannabinoids did not fulfil the needs of sensitivity.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center