Citation

Tiscione NB. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2015; 39(4): 330-331.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Preston Publications)

DOI

10.1093/jat/bkv005

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In a recent article by Logan et al. (1) conclusions regarding the comparison of urine to oral fluid (OF) and the recommendation for routine drug analysis for driving under the influence (DUI) investigations do not appear to be supported by the data presented in the manuscript. The scope of the laboratory testing reported is not necessarily a real world comparison of OF and urine. Immunoassay (IA) is commonly performed on OF (2, 3) but was not performed in the laboratory in this study. It has been recommended (3) that forensic laboratories routinely employ IA on blood, OF and urine specimens followed by confirmatory testing, and field testing does not generally qualify as one of the laboratory tests. In this study, OF specimens were only tested in the laboratory using confirmation methods employing liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for a very limited group of drugs with confirmation cutoffs that differ from those recommended (3). Limiting the laboratory testing in terms of the scope of compounds and not performing an IA such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) limits …

See authors' response: DOI 10.1093/jat/bkv009

Language: en