Huang Min-Kun, Dai Yu-Shan, Lee Choung-Huei, Liu Chiareiy, Tsay Wen-Ing, Li Jih-Heng
National Bureau of Controlled Drugs, Department of Health-Taiwan, 6 Linsen South Road, Taipei 10050, Taiwan, ROC.
J Anal Toxicol. 2006 Jan-Feb;30(1):61-4. doi: 10.1093/jat/30.1.61.
Arrestee urine specimens (930) were tested with DRI, CEDIA, and REMEDi; those that tested positive for amphetamines and opiates (616 and 414, respectively) were then confirmed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The performance characteristics of these three preliminary systems were evaluated using the following commonly used parameters: true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative. The sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency of these methods were also calculated. Data derived from this study indicated DRI and CEDIA adapted by this study generated acceptable preliminary test results for amphetamine/methamphetamine and morphine/codeine, but not for MDA/MDMA and REMEDi has lower sensitivity than DRI and CEDIA, but with better specificity and efficiency, supporting its use under emergency room settings where drug concentrations in overdose cases are expectedly at high levels.
对930份被捕者尿液样本使用药物快速检测（DRI）、微粒酶免疫分析（CEDIA）和快速多药物检测系统（REMEDi）进行检测；对苯丙胺类和阿片类药物检测呈阳性的样本（分别为616份和414份）随后通过气相色谱-质谱联用仪进行确认。使用以下常用参数评估这三种初步检测系统的性能特征：真阳性、真阴性、假阳性和假阴性。还计算了这些方法的灵敏度、特异性和效率。本研究得出的数据表明，本研究采用的DRI和CEDIA对苯丙胺/甲基苯丙胺和吗啡/可待因产生了可接受的初步检测结果，但对3,4－亚甲二氧基苯丙胺/摇头丸则不然，且REMEDi的灵敏度低于DRI和CEDIA，但特异性和效率更高，这支持了其在预期过量用药病例中药物浓度较高的急诊室环境下的使用。
