ArticleHarm reduction journal2026
Analytical performance and visual evaluation of fentanyl and xylazine test strips.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What's in the Powder? Evaluating Fentanyl Test Strip Sensitivity to Common Household Items in Chemical Emergency Response Scenarios.Journal of chemical health & safety · 2025Article
- Highlighting variability in fentanyl test strip instructions using thematic content analysis.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
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
backgroundTesting street drugs for the presence of active adulterants such as fentanyl and xylazine can provide the user some confidence as to the safety of their drugs.
methodsWe obtained 3 different commercially available xylazine and 3 different commercially available fentanyl test strips and evaluated them for analytical sensitivity using drug standards. The specificity of the fentanyl strips against fentanyl analogues was also assessed. Powdered fentanyl, xylazine, and fentanyl analogue standards were dissolved in water and serially diluted to bracket the manufacturer's stated test strip sensitivity. Each dilution was tested in duplicate until a negative result was obtained. The ability to discern positive from negative results under different lighting conditions was also assessed for one of the strips (two lots of reagents).
resultsAll three xylazine test strips detected the drug at concentrations below the manufacturer's stated limits, however one strip was substantially more sensitive (at 50 ng/mL) than the other two (at 250 ng/mL). One of the fentanyl strips had the best sensitivity (at 3.5 ng/mL), well below the stated sensitivity of 20 ng/mL. The other two were less sensitive (at 7 and 250 ng/mL). For specificity against fentanyl analogues, all of the strips tested positive for all of the analogues tested, but at different levels. The visual endpoints for all of the strips were acceptable under normal lighting conditions, but cannot be read when the ambient light is low.
conclusionBased on these results, we selected one xylazine (Shanghai Accurature Diagnostics) and one fentanyl strip (W.P.H.M.) based on the best analytical sensitivity. The fentanyl strip chosen had varying degrees of specificity against the other manufacturers.
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.