ArticleJournal of analytical toxicology2025
Evaluation of DrugWipe® 6S with the WipeAlyser® reader for drug screening of drivers.
Article in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
On-site drug screening of oral fluid samples has gained attention because of its convenience and rapid results. The aim of this investigation was to compare the results of preliminary screening for drugs in oral fluid samples collected from suspected drug-impaired drivers using DrugWipe 6S and WipeAlyser reader with the results obtained from blood samples. Additionally, we compared the DrugWipe test results with findings of drug traces detected within the used DrugWipe devices. Police officers selected a sample of 355 suspected drug-impaired drivers in 2023. They used DrugWipe 6S for preliminary drug screening of drivers. After the field drug testing of oral fluid, the apprehended drivers were brought to a physician for the collection of blood samples. The collected samples (DrugWipe devices and blood samples) were submitted to the Norwegian National Forensic Toxicology Laboratory for analysis. The proportion of positive DrugWipe results that were unconfirmed when analysing blood samples was 82% for opiates, 75% for cocaine, and ∼19%-20% for amphetamines, cannabis, and benzodiazepines. The proportion of negative DrugWipe results that were found positive in blood samples was for cannabis and benzodiazepines ∼13%-14%, and for other drugs <3%. Detected drug traces in the used DrugWipe devices corresponded well with DrugWipe readouts for cannabis, amphetamines, and cocaine. The lack of correspondence between DrugWipe test results for cocaine and findings in blood may be due to the fact that the concentration of cocaine in saliva is often much higher than in blood, and the DrugWipe test is very sensitive. In addition, degradation and elimination of cocaine before the blood sample is taken may contribute to cocaine concentrations below the cut-off concentration in blood. For opiates and benzodiazepines, traces of drugs were found in relatively few DrugWipe devices. Many unconfirmed positives for opiates were most likely due to cross-reaction with substances in 'snus' (snuff tobacco).
Indexed as
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.