• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

CEDIA for screening drugs of abuse in urine and the effect of adulterants.

作者信息

Wu A H, Forte E, Casella G, Sun K, Hemphill G, Foery R, Schanzenbach H

机构信息

Toxicology Laboratory, Hartford Hospital, CT, USA.

出版信息

J Forensic Sci. 1995 Jul;40(4):614-8.

PMID:7595298
Abstract

The performance of the Microgenics CEDIA DAU assays for screening amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, opiates, phencylidine (PCP), and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was evaluated on the Boehringer Mannheim/Hitachi 717 in urine. Limits of detection ranged from 0.6 ng/mL for PCP, to 34.1 ng/mL for benzodiazepines. The average within run and total precision for these assays ranged from 1.3 to 7.3% for controls at cutoff concentrations, and control values at -25% and +25% of cutoffs. The rate separations by CEDIA between the negative and cutoff calibrators for all drugs were greater than corresponding EMIT II (Syva Co.) assays. The relative sensitivity and specificity of CEDIA as compared to EMIT II were 95.6 and 98.8%, respectively, on 13,535 urine samples. All positive samples, and those samples producing discordant results between the assays were confirmed by quantitative gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Using SAMHSA cutoff limits (and including barbiturates and benzodiazepines at 300 ng/mL), the relative sensitivity and specificity of CEDIA vs. EMIT II were 96.7 and 98.8%, respectively. The overall sensitivity of CEDIA vs. GC/MS was 98.9% with 179 false positives, as compared to 96.2% with 189 false positives for EMIT II vs. GC/MS. The effect of adulterants added to urine to potentially invalidate screening results was also tested. CEDIA produced strong interferences for most drug assays in the presence of glutaraldehyde, detergent, and high concentrations of bleach and Drano. Minimal or selective interferences were seen with golden seal tea lemon juice, Visine, and low concentrations of bleach and Drano. Essentially no interference was observed with bicarbonate, sodium chloride, and vinegar.

摘要

相似文献

1
CEDIA for screening drugs of abuse in urine and the effect of adulterants.
J Forensic Sci. 1995 Jul;40(4):614-8.
2
Precision and comparability of Abuscreen OnLine assays for drugs of abuse screening in urine on Hitachi 917 with other immunochemical tests and with GC/MS.在日立917上使用Abuscreen OnLine分析法对尿液中滥用药物进行筛查时,其与其他免疫化学检测方法以及气相色谱/质谱联用仪(GC/MS)相比的精密度和可比性。
Clin Lab. 2000;46(1-2):49-52.
3
Optimization and validation of CEDIA drugs of abuse immunoassay tests in serum on Hitachi 912.优化和验证日立 912 全自动生化分析仪上血清中 CEDIA 药物滥用免疫分析检测方法。
Forensic Sci Int. 2011 Oct 10;212(1-3):252-5. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.06.029. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
4
Comparison of the Microgenics CEDIA heroin metabolite (6-AM) and the Roche Abuscreen ONLINE opiate immunoassays for the detection of heroin use in forensic urine samples.用于法医尿液样本中检测海洛因使用情况的Microgenics CEDIA海洛因代谢物(6-单乙酰吗啡)检测法与罗氏Abuscreen ONLINE阿片类免疫分析法的比较。
J Anal Toxicol. 2004 Sep;28(6):489-93. doi: 10.1093/jat/28.6.489.
5
Substance abuse testing of urine by GC/MS in scanning mode evaluated by proficiency studies, TLC/GC, and EMIT.采用能力验证研究、薄层色谱/气相色谱法(TLC/GC)和酶倍增免疫测定技术(EMIT),以扫描模式通过气相色谱/质谱联用仪(GC/MS)对尿液进行药物滥用检测。
J Forensic Sci. 1993 Jan;38(1):124-33.
6
[Comparison of the MTP immunoassay with EMIT in blood screening for drugs].
Arch Kriminol. 1998 Nov-Dec;202(5-6):165-72.
7
Drug screening in urine by cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA) and kinetic interaction of microparticles in solution (KIMS): a comparative study.通过克隆酶供体免疫分析(CEDIA)和溶液中微粒的动力学相互作用(KIMS)对尿液进行药物筛查:一项比较研究。
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(4):479-87. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2006.087.
8
Optimization of cloned enzyme donor immunoassay cut-offs for drugs of abuse in whole blood of drivers involved in road accidents.交通事故中涉事驾驶员全血中滥用药物的克隆酶供体免疫分析临界值的优化。
Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Jan;294:27-33. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.10.023. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
9
Drug screening and confirmation by GC-MS: comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS against 10 drugs between US and England laboratories.
Forensic Sci Int. 2006 Mar 10;157(2-3):106-16. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.03.022.
10
Evaluation of the Abuscreen ONLINE assay for amphetamines on the Hitachi 737: comparison with EMIT and GC/MS methods.在日立737上对用于检测苯丙胺类药物的Abuscreen ONLINE检测法的评估:与EMIT和气相色谱/质谱联用方法的比较。
J Forensic Sci. 1995 Jan;40(1):108-12.

引用本文的文献

1
A critical review of workplace drug testing methods for old and new psychoactive substances: Gaps, advances, and perspectives.新旧精神活性物质工作场所药物检测方法的批判性综述:差距、进展与展望。
Saudi Pharm J. 2024 May;32(5):102065. doi: 10.1016/j.jsps.2024.102065. Epub 2024 Apr 8.
2
Does Lidocaine Cause False Positive Results on Cocaine Urine Drug Screen?利多卡因会导致可卡因尿液药物筛查呈假阳性吗?
J Med Toxicol. 2019 Oct;15(4):255-261. doi: 10.1007/s13181-019-00720-3. Epub 2019 Jul 1.
3
Urine specimen validity test for drug abuse testing in workplace and court settings.
尿液标本药物滥用检测在工作场所和法庭环境中的有效性测试。
J Food Drug Anal. 2018 Jan;26(1):380-384. doi: 10.1016/j.jfda.2017.01.001. Epub 2017 Feb 14.
4
Immunoassays for drug screening in urine : Chances, challenges, and pitfalls.尿液中药物筛查的免疫测定:机遇、挑战与陷阱
Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2006 Jun;2(2):75-83. doi: 10.1385/FSMP:2:2:75.
5
A case of psychosis after use of a detoxification kit and a review of techniques, risks, and regulations associated with the subversion of urine drug tests.一例使用戒毒试剂盒后出现精神病的病例以及对与尿液药物检测作弊相关的技术、风险和法规的综述。
Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2011;13(5). doi: 10.4088/PCC.11r01178.
6
False-Positive Urine Screening for Benzodiazepines: An Association with Sertraline?: A Two-year Retrospective Chart Analysis.苯二氮䓬类药物的尿液筛查假阳性:与舍曲林有关联吗?一项为期两年的回顾性病历分析
Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2009 Jul;6(7):36-9.