Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 42: 1433-1438, 1996;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by de la Torre, R.
Right arrow Articles by Torrens, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by de la Torre, R.
Right arrow Articles by Torrens, M.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 42, 1433-1438, Copyright © 1996 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Clinical evaluation of the Triage analytic device for drugs-of-abuse testing

R de la Torre, A Domingo-Salvany, R Badia, G Gonzalez, D McFarlane, L San and M Torrens
Departamento de Farmacologia y Toxicologia, Institut Municipal d'Investigacio Medica, Barcelona, Spain.rtorre@gti.imim.es

In the present clinical evaluation of Triage immunoassay for detection of drugs of abuse, we examined a possible connection between the laboratory skills of the personnel using it and the quality of analytical results; we also evaluated the degree of concordance between the Triage results and those obtained by an instrumented fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA). Three groups of evaluators with different laboratory skills and two sets of urine samples from subjects with different rates of drug consumption prevalence were included in the study. Urines were analyzed by the Triage analytical device at the collection site. A second analysis was performed in a toxicology laboratory, and the results were compared with those obtained by FPIA. Nonconcordant results were confirmed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and HPLC. Results were independent of the laboratory skills of the evaluators. The agreement for each drug calculated for two populations with differences in prevalence of drug consumption was almost the same, except for benzodiazepines. No differences between Triage and FPIA results were observed for samples clearly over or under cutoff concentrations. Globally, the Triage device, in a clinical situation, demonstrated performance comparable with that of an instrument-based immunoassay and, in some cases (e.g., for benzodiazepines), the Triage performance was even better.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.