ArticleEJIFCC2026
Evaluation of NicCheck I Test Strips for the rapid detection of urine nicotine metabolites.
Article in EJIFCC, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tobacco use adversely affects surgical outcomes, prompting guidelines for preoperative smoking cessation. Accurate assessment of smoking status is critical, yet self-reporting is often unreliable. Biochemical verification via nicotine metabolites, particularly cotinine, offers objective evaluation. While mass spectrometry provides high sensitivity, point-of-care (POC) tests offer rapid, accessible alternatives. This study assesses the performance of NicCheck I, a CLIA-waived urine test, by comparing its results to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for detecting tobacco exposure in surgical patients. Methods: Twenty-four frozen urine samples (12 cotinine-negative, 12 cotinine-positive) were analyzed using NicCheck I test strips and LC-MS/MS. Sample integrity, and pH were assessed using Siemens Multistix 10 SG reagent strips. Results: NicCheck I correctly identified all negative samples but detected nicotine metabolites in only 9 of 12 LC-MS/MS-confirmed positive samples. False negatives were associated with metabolite concentrations below the NicCheck I detection threshold (200 ng/mL) or urine pH outside the optimal range (4.5 - 8.5) consistent with manufacturer's package insert. LC-MS/MS demonstrated superior sensitivity. Conclusion: NicCheck I test strips provide a practical and same-day rapid screening tool for nicotine exposure in clinical settings prior to surgery, but the test is less sensitive than LC-MS/MS. NicCheck I test strip performance may be affected by abnormal urine pH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42729964PMC13563523What 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.