Interpretation and Utility of Drug of Abuse Screening Immunoassays: Insights From Laboratory Drug Testing Proficiency Surveys
Urine drug testing is frequently ordered by health care providers. Immunoassays are widely used for drug testing, yet have potential limitations, including variable cross-reactivity. The last decade has seen worsening of a prescription drug abuse epidemic. To use data from a College of American Path...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976) 2020-02, Vol.144 (2), p.177-184 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 184 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 177 |
container_title | Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976) |
container_volume | 144 |
creator | Krasowski, Matthew D McMillin, Gwendolyn A Melanson, Stacy E F Dizon, Annabel Magnani, Barbarajean Snozek, Christine L H |
description | Urine drug testing is frequently ordered by health care providers. Immunoassays are widely used for drug testing, yet have potential limitations, including variable cross-reactivity. The last decade has seen worsening of a prescription drug abuse epidemic.
To use data from a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey, Urine Drug Testing, Screening, to determine and summarize the characteristics, performance, and limitations of immunoassays.
Seven years of proficiency surveys were reviewed (2011-2017).
Rapid growth was seen in participant volumes for specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids (eg, buprenorphine, fentanyl, oxycodone) and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("ecstasy"). Participant volumes remained high for immunoassays targeting less commonly abused drugs such as barbiturates and phencyclidine. For opiate immunoassays, the number of laboratories using a 2000 ng/mL positive cutoff remained stable, and an increasing number adopted a 100 ng/mL cutoff. Opiate and amphetamine immunoassays showed high variability in cross-reactivity for drugs other than the assay calibrator. Assays targeting a single drug or metabolite generally performed well on drug challenges.
Survey results indicate strong clinical interest in urine drug testing and some adoption of new assays. However, urine drug testing availability does not parallel prevailing patterns of drug prescribing and abuse patterns. In particular, specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids and a lower positive cutoff for opiate immunoassays may be underused, whereas immunoassays for barbiturates, methadone, propoxyphene, and phencyclidine may be overused. Laboratories are encouraged to review their test menu, cutoffs, and assay performance and adjust their test offerings based on clinical needs and technical capabilities. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5858/arpa.2018-0562-CP |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2259355218</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A616994748</galeid><sourcerecordid>A616994748</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-c985b9e3dd064ef94df44986bdb6e6d3699a43daee8812972e90948a4c80842a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptklGL1DAUhYMo7rj6A3yRgiC-dEzSpJv4NoyuDgw4sLvPIU1vZ7K0yZikQh_876bMKrsy3IdLwncu5yYHobcEL7ng4pMOR72kmIgS85qW690ztCCcVSUlNX-OFhjjqpRS8Av0Ksb7fJSUkpfooiK5ZI0X6PfGJQjHAEkn612hXVvcJdvbNBW-K76EcT_3VTNGKG5MAHDW7YvNMIzO6xj1FD8XGxft_pBicR38UGx144NOPkwn-S3ENGt2wXfWWHBmKm7G8Aum-Bq96HQf4c1Dv0R3119v19_L7Y9vm_VqWxqORSpNXqGRULUtrhl0krUdY1LUTdvUULdVLaVmVasBhCBUXlGQWDKhmRFYMKqrS_TxNPcY_M8x-1GDjQb6XjvwY1SUcllxTonI6Pv_0Hs_BpfdKVplghNMH1F73YOyrvMpaDMPVauaZD_sis1UeYbag4Oge--gs_n6Cb88w-dqYbDmrODDI8EBdJ8O0ffj_JXxKUhOoAk-xgCdOgY76DApgtWcJTVnSc1ZUnOW1HqXNe8eXmJsBmj_Kf6Gp_oD30_EOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2352151028</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interpretation and Utility of Drug of Abuse Screening Immunoassays: Insights From Laboratory Drug Testing Proficiency Surveys</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>Allen Press Miscellaneous</source><creator>Krasowski, Matthew D ; McMillin, Gwendolyn A ; Melanson, Stacy E F ; Dizon, Annabel ; Magnani, Barbarajean ; Snozek, Christine L H</creator><creatorcontrib>Krasowski, Matthew D ; McMillin, Gwendolyn A ; Melanson, Stacy E F ; Dizon, Annabel ; Magnani, Barbarajean ; Snozek, Christine L H</creatorcontrib><description>Urine drug testing is frequently ordered by health care providers. Immunoassays are widely used for drug testing, yet have potential limitations, including variable cross-reactivity. The last decade has seen worsening of a prescription drug abuse epidemic.
To use data from a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey, Urine Drug Testing, Screening, to determine and summarize the characteristics, performance, and limitations of immunoassays.
Seven years of proficiency surveys were reviewed (2011-2017).
Rapid growth was seen in participant volumes for specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids (eg, buprenorphine, fentanyl, oxycodone) and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("ecstasy"). Participant volumes remained high for immunoassays targeting less commonly abused drugs such as barbiturates and phencyclidine. For opiate immunoassays, the number of laboratories using a 2000 ng/mL positive cutoff remained stable, and an increasing number adopted a 100 ng/mL cutoff. Opiate and amphetamine immunoassays showed high variability in cross-reactivity for drugs other than the assay calibrator. Assays targeting a single drug or metabolite generally performed well on drug challenges.
Survey results indicate strong clinical interest in urine drug testing and some adoption of new assays. However, urine drug testing availability does not parallel prevailing patterns of drug prescribing and abuse patterns. In particular, specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids and a lower positive cutoff for opiate immunoassays may be underused, whereas immunoassays for barbiturates, methadone, propoxyphene, and phencyclidine may be overused. Laboratories are encouraged to review their test menu, cutoffs, and assay performance and adjust their test offerings based on clinical needs and technical capabilities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-9985</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1543-2165</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1543-2165</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0562-CP</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31313960</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: College of American Pathologists</publisher><subject>Amphetamines ; Analgesics, Opioid - analysis ; Automation ; Barbiturates ; Benzodiazepines ; Buprenorphine ; Cannabinoids ; Cocaine ; Codeine ; Cross-reactivity ; Drug abuse ; Drug testing ; Drug use ; Ecstasy ; Fentanyl ; Heroin ; Humans ; Immunoassay ; Immunoassay - methods ; Laboratory Proficiency Testing ; LSD ; Lysergic acid diethylamide ; MDMA ; Measuring instruments ; Medical laboratories ; Medical societies ; Metabolites ; Methadone ; Methamphetamine ; Morphine ; Narcotics ; Opioids ; Overdose ; Oxycodone ; Phencyclidine ; Prescription drug abuse ; Prescription drugs ; Prescription writing ; Prescriptions (Drugs) ; Propoxyphene ; Public health ; Resveratrol ; Retrospective Studies ; Substance abuse ; Substance Abuse Detection ; Surveys ; Tetrahydrocannabinol ; Trends ; Urine</subject><ispartof>Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976), 2020-02, Vol.144 (2), p.177-184</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 College of American Pathologists</rights><rights>Copyright College of American Pathologists Feb 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-c985b9e3dd064ef94df44986bdb6e6d3699a43daee8812972e90948a4c80842a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-c985b9e3dd064ef94df44986bdb6e6d3699a43daee8812972e90948a4c80842a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31313960$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Krasowski, Matthew D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McMillin, Gwendolyn A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melanson, Stacy E F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dizon, Annabel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magnani, Barbarajean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snozek, Christine L H</creatorcontrib><title>Interpretation and Utility of Drug of Abuse Screening Immunoassays: Insights From Laboratory Drug Testing Proficiency Surveys</title><title>Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976)</title><addtitle>Arch Pathol Lab Med</addtitle><description>Urine drug testing is frequently ordered by health care providers. Immunoassays are widely used for drug testing, yet have potential limitations, including variable cross-reactivity. The last decade has seen worsening of a prescription drug abuse epidemic.
To use data from a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey, Urine Drug Testing, Screening, to determine and summarize the characteristics, performance, and limitations of immunoassays.
Seven years of proficiency surveys were reviewed (2011-2017).
Rapid growth was seen in participant volumes for specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids (eg, buprenorphine, fentanyl, oxycodone) and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("ecstasy"). Participant volumes remained high for immunoassays targeting less commonly abused drugs such as barbiturates and phencyclidine. For opiate immunoassays, the number of laboratories using a 2000 ng/mL positive cutoff remained stable, and an increasing number adopted a 100 ng/mL cutoff. Opiate and amphetamine immunoassays showed high variability in cross-reactivity for drugs other than the assay calibrator. Assays targeting a single drug or metabolite generally performed well on drug challenges.
Survey results indicate strong clinical interest in urine drug testing and some adoption of new assays. However, urine drug testing availability does not parallel prevailing patterns of drug prescribing and abuse patterns. In particular, specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids and a lower positive cutoff for opiate immunoassays may be underused, whereas immunoassays for barbiturates, methadone, propoxyphene, and phencyclidine may be overused. Laboratories are encouraged to review their test menu, cutoffs, and assay performance and adjust their test offerings based on clinical needs and technical capabilities.</description><subject>Amphetamines</subject><subject>Analgesics, Opioid - analysis</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Barbiturates</subject><subject>Benzodiazepines</subject><subject>Buprenorphine</subject><subject>Cannabinoids</subject><subject>Cocaine</subject><subject>Codeine</subject><subject>Cross-reactivity</subject><subject>Drug abuse</subject><subject>Drug testing</subject><subject>Drug use</subject><subject>Ecstasy</subject><subject>Fentanyl</subject><subject>Heroin</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoassay</subject><subject>Immunoassay - methods</subject><subject>Laboratory Proficiency Testing</subject><subject>LSD</subject><subject>Lysergic acid diethylamide</subject><subject>MDMA</subject><subject>Measuring instruments</subject><subject>Medical laboratories</subject><subject>Medical societies</subject><subject>Metabolites</subject><subject>Methadone</subject><subject>Methamphetamine</subject><subject>Morphine</subject><subject>Narcotics</subject><subject>Opioids</subject><subject>Overdose</subject><subject>Oxycodone</subject><subject>Phencyclidine</subject><subject>Prescription drug abuse</subject><subject>Prescription drugs</subject><subject>Prescription writing</subject><subject>Prescriptions (Drugs)</subject><subject>Propoxyphene</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Resveratrol</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Substance abuse</subject><subject>Substance Abuse Detection</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Tetrahydrocannabinol</subject><subject>Trends</subject><subject>Urine</subject><issn>0003-9985</issn><issn>1543-2165</issn><issn>1543-2165</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNptklGL1DAUhYMo7rj6A3yRgiC-dEzSpJv4NoyuDgw4sLvPIU1vZ7K0yZikQh_876bMKrsy3IdLwncu5yYHobcEL7ng4pMOR72kmIgS85qW690ztCCcVSUlNX-OFhjjqpRS8Av0Ksb7fJSUkpfooiK5ZI0X6PfGJQjHAEkn612hXVvcJdvbNBW-K76EcT_3VTNGKG5MAHDW7YvNMIzO6xj1FD8XGxft_pBicR38UGx144NOPkwn-S3ENGt2wXfWWHBmKm7G8Aum-Bq96HQf4c1Dv0R3119v19_L7Y9vm_VqWxqORSpNXqGRULUtrhl0krUdY1LUTdvUULdVLaVmVasBhCBUXlGQWDKhmRFYMKqrS_TxNPcY_M8x-1GDjQb6XjvwY1SUcllxTonI6Pv_0Hs_BpfdKVplghNMH1F73YOyrvMpaDMPVauaZD_sis1UeYbag4Oge--gs_n6Cb88w-dqYbDmrODDI8EBdJ8O0ffj_JXxKUhOoAk-xgCdOgY76DApgtWcJTVnSc1ZUnOW1HqXNe8eXmJsBmj_Kf6Gp_oD30_EOQ</recordid><startdate>20200201</startdate><enddate>20200201</enddate><creator>Krasowski, Matthew D</creator><creator>McMillin, Gwendolyn A</creator><creator>Melanson, Stacy E F</creator><creator>Dizon, Annabel</creator><creator>Magnani, Barbarajean</creator><creator>Snozek, Christine L H</creator><general>College of American Pathologists</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200201</creationdate><title>Interpretation and Utility of Drug of Abuse Screening Immunoassays: Insights From Laboratory Drug Testing Proficiency Surveys</title><author>Krasowski, Matthew D ; McMillin, Gwendolyn A ; Melanson, Stacy E F ; Dizon, Annabel ; Magnani, Barbarajean ; Snozek, Christine L H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-c985b9e3dd064ef94df44986bdb6e6d3699a43daee8812972e90948a4c80842a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Amphetamines</topic><topic>Analgesics, Opioid - analysis</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Barbiturates</topic><topic>Benzodiazepines</topic><topic>Buprenorphine</topic><topic>Cannabinoids</topic><topic>Cocaine</topic><topic>Codeine</topic><topic>Cross-reactivity</topic><topic>Drug abuse</topic><topic>Drug testing</topic><topic>Drug use</topic><topic>Ecstasy</topic><topic>Fentanyl</topic><topic>Heroin</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoassay</topic><topic>Immunoassay - methods</topic><topic>Laboratory Proficiency Testing</topic><topic>LSD</topic><topic>Lysergic acid diethylamide</topic><topic>MDMA</topic><topic>Measuring instruments</topic><topic>Medical laboratories</topic><topic>Medical societies</topic><topic>Metabolites</topic><topic>Methadone</topic><topic>Methamphetamine</topic><topic>Morphine</topic><topic>Narcotics</topic><topic>Opioids</topic><topic>Overdose</topic><topic>Oxycodone</topic><topic>Phencyclidine</topic><topic>Prescription drug abuse</topic><topic>Prescription drugs</topic><topic>Prescription writing</topic><topic>Prescriptions (Drugs)</topic><topic>Propoxyphene</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Resveratrol</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Substance abuse</topic><topic>Substance Abuse Detection</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Tetrahydrocannabinol</topic><topic>Trends</topic><topic>Urine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Krasowski, Matthew D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McMillin, Gwendolyn A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melanson, Stacy E F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dizon, Annabel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magnani, Barbarajean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snozek, Christine L H</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Krasowski, Matthew D</au><au>McMillin, Gwendolyn A</au><au>Melanson, Stacy E F</au><au>Dizon, Annabel</au><au>Magnani, Barbarajean</au><au>Snozek, Christine L H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interpretation and Utility of Drug of Abuse Screening Immunoassays: Insights From Laboratory Drug Testing Proficiency Surveys</atitle><jtitle>Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976)</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Pathol Lab Med</addtitle><date>2020-02-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>144</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>177</spage><epage>184</epage><pages>177-184</pages><issn>0003-9985</issn><issn>1543-2165</issn><eissn>1543-2165</eissn><abstract>Urine drug testing is frequently ordered by health care providers. Immunoassays are widely used for drug testing, yet have potential limitations, including variable cross-reactivity. The last decade has seen worsening of a prescription drug abuse epidemic.
To use data from a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey, Urine Drug Testing, Screening, to determine and summarize the characteristics, performance, and limitations of immunoassays.
Seven years of proficiency surveys were reviewed (2011-2017).
Rapid growth was seen in participant volumes for specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids (eg, buprenorphine, fentanyl, oxycodone) and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("ecstasy"). Participant volumes remained high for immunoassays targeting less commonly abused drugs such as barbiturates and phencyclidine. For opiate immunoassays, the number of laboratories using a 2000 ng/mL positive cutoff remained stable, and an increasing number adopted a 100 ng/mL cutoff. Opiate and amphetamine immunoassays showed high variability in cross-reactivity for drugs other than the assay calibrator. Assays targeting a single drug or metabolite generally performed well on drug challenges.
Survey results indicate strong clinical interest in urine drug testing and some adoption of new assays. However, urine drug testing availability does not parallel prevailing patterns of drug prescribing and abuse patterns. In particular, specific immunoassays for synthetic opioids and a lower positive cutoff for opiate immunoassays may be underused, whereas immunoassays for barbiturates, methadone, propoxyphene, and phencyclidine may be overused. Laboratories are encouraged to review their test menu, cutoffs, and assay performance and adjust their test offerings based on clinical needs and technical capabilities.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>College of American Pathologists</pub><pmid>31313960</pmid><doi>10.5858/arpa.2018-0562-CP</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-9985 |
ispartof | Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine (1976), 2020-02, Vol.144 (2), p.177-184 |
issn | 0003-9985 1543-2165 1543-2165 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2259355218 |
source | MEDLINE; EZB Electronic Journals Library; Allen Press Miscellaneous |
subjects | Amphetamines Analgesics, Opioid - analysis Automation Barbiturates Benzodiazepines Buprenorphine Cannabinoids Cocaine Codeine Cross-reactivity Drug abuse Drug testing Drug use Ecstasy Fentanyl Heroin Humans Immunoassay Immunoassay - methods Laboratory Proficiency Testing LSD Lysergic acid diethylamide MDMA Measuring instruments Medical laboratories Medical societies Metabolites Methadone Methamphetamine Morphine Narcotics Opioids Overdose Oxycodone Phencyclidine Prescription drug abuse Prescription drugs Prescription writing Prescriptions (Drugs) Propoxyphene Public health Resveratrol Retrospective Studies Substance abuse Substance Abuse Detection Surveys Tetrahydrocannabinol Trends Urine |
title | Interpretation and Utility of Drug of Abuse Screening Immunoassays: Insights From Laboratory Drug Testing Proficiency Surveys |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T19%3A30%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interpretation%20and%20Utility%20of%20Drug%20of%20Abuse%20Screening%20Immunoassays:%20Insights%20From%20Laboratory%20Drug%20Testing%20Proficiency%20Surveys&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20pathology%20&%20laboratory%20medicine%20(1976)&rft.au=Krasowski,%20Matthew%20D&rft.date=2020-02-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=177&rft.epage=184&rft.pages=177-184&rft.issn=0003-9985&rft.eissn=1543-2165&rft_id=info:doi/10.5858/arpa.2018-0562-CP&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA616994748%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2352151028&rft_id=info:pmid/31313960&rft_galeid=A616994748&rfr_iscdi=true |