ArticleJournal of analytical methods in chemistry2016
A Study on the Reliability of an On-Site Oral Fluid Drug Test in a Recreational Context.
Article in Journal of analytical methods in chemistry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of ΔDrug testing and analysis · 2019Trial
- Sweat as a diagnostic biofluid: analytical advances and future directions.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2026Review
- Evaluation of DrugWipe® 6S with the WipeAlyser® reader for drug screening of drivers.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2025Article
- Detection of Cannabinoids in Oral Fluid Specimens as the Preferred Biological Matrix for a Point-of-Care Biosensor Diagnostic Device.Biosensors · 2024Review
- Glycosylated gold nanoparticles in point of care diagnostics: from aggregation to lateral flow.Chemical Society reviews · 2022Review
- Hand-Held Diode Laser for On-Site Analysis Using Transportable Mass Spectrometry.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Roadside Drug Testing Approaches.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Monoclonal Antibodies Application in Lateral Flow Immunochromatographic Assays for Drugs of Abuse Detection.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Correlation between Blood and Oral Fluid Psychoactive Drug Concentrations and Cognitive Impairment in Driving under the Influence of Drugs.Current neuropharmacology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability of DrugWipe 5A on site test for principal drugs of abuse (cannabis, amphetamines, cocaine, and opiates) detection in oral fluid was assessed by comparing the on-site results with headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis on samples extracted by the device collection pad. Oral fluid samples were collected at recreational settings (e.g., discos, pubs, and music bars) of Rome metropolitan area. Eighty-three club goers underwent the on-site drug screening test with one device. Independently from the result obtained, a second device was used just to collect another oral fluid sample subsequently extracted and analyzed in the laboratory following HS-SPME procedure, gas chromatographic separation by a capillary column, and MS detection by electron impact ionization. DrugWipe 5A on-site test showed 54 samples (65.1%) positive to one or more drugs of abuse, whereas 75 samples (90.4%) tested positive for one or more substances following GC-MS assay. Comparing the obtained results, the device showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy around 80% for amphetamines class. Sensitivity (67 and 50%) was obtained for cocaine and opiates, while both sensitivity and accuracy were unsuccessful (29 and 53%, resp.) for cannabis, underlying the limitation of the device for this latter drug class.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.