An analytical evaluation of eight on-site oral fluid drug screening devices using laboratory confirmation results from oral fluid

Prevalence of alcohol and other psychoactive substances in injured drivers: Comparison between Belgium and the Netherlands

“…The following methods were used for the toxicological analysis: enzymatic method for ethanol analysis, solid phase extraction followed by UPLC-MS/MS analysis for all substances except cannabinoids, ELISA screening (qualitative) for cannabinoids and liquid-liquid extraction followed by GC-MS analysis for samples that gave a positive ELISA result for cannabis [9,10]. An enzymatic method for ethanol analysis and protein precipitation followed by UPLC-MS/MS for all other substances were used for the Dutch toxicological analysis of the whole blood sample.…”

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

“…Anyway the devices were still not fully satisfactory, especially for cannabis. Scientific papers reporting the results of DRUID-related studies began to appear in late 2010 [7]. Some kits tested during these studies have been further improved in the last few years, as claimed by the manufacturers, displaying lower cut-offs (e.g.…”

An assessment of oral fluid drug screening devices

“…False alarm rates for these substances ranged from less than 1% (cocaine) to just under 7% (opioids). With the exception of opioids, 3 positive predictive values were in excess of 0.9.…”

“…The most recent large-scale evaluation of oral fluid screening devices was conducted as part of the DRUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines) project in Europe [3,4]. Eight on-site tests were evaluated for their ability to accurately detect amphetamine, D 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cocaine, opiates, benzodiazepines, methamphetamine, methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), and phencyclidine.…”