|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Urine monster normal: 62; diluted: 0; abnormal: 0; not tested: 7. Kreatinine: 9 mmol/l. |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opiates: negative (<300 µg/l) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Summary statistics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
screening: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
FP* |
|
FN* |
||||||||||
|
|
2 |
= |
3 |
% |
65 |
= |
94 |
% |
2 |
= |
3 |
% |
2=3% |
|
0 |
|
|
confirmation: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
6-MAM |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
5 |
= |
7 |
% |
64 |
= |
93 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
morphine |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
5 |
= |
7 |
% |
64 |
= |
93 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
codeine |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
5 |
= |
7 |
% |
64 |
= |
93 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cocain: screening negative (<300 µg/l) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Summary statistics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
screening: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
FP* |
|
FN* |
||||||||||
|
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
68 |
= |
99 |
% |
1 |
= |
1 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
confirmation: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
benzoylecgonine |
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
6 |
= |
9 |
% |
63 |
= |
91 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amphetamines: screening negative (<1000 µg/l) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
Summary statistics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
screening: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
FP* |
|
FN* |
||||||||||
|
amphetamines&analogues |
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
53 |
= |
77 |
% |
16 |
= |
23 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
amphetamine |
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
23 |
= |
33 |
% |
46 |
= |
67 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
methylamphetamine |
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
20 |
= |
29 |
% |
49 |
= |
71 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
MDMA |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
16 |
= |
23 |
% |
53 |
= |
77 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
MDA |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
4 |
= |
6 |
% |
65 |
= |
94 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
MDEA |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
2 |
= |
3 |
% |
67 |
= |
97 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
confirmation: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
amphetamine |
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
4 |
= |
6 |
% |
65 |
= |
94 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
methylamphetamine |
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
4 |
= |
6 |
% |
65 |
= |
94 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
MDA |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
4 |
= |
6 |
% |
65 |
= |
94 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
MDMA |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
5 |
= |
7 |
% |
64 |
= |
93 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
MDEA |
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
4 |
= |
6 |
% |
65 |
= |
94 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cannabinoids: screening positive (>50 µg/l) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Summary statistics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
screening: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
FP* |
|
FN* |
||||||||||
|
|
|
63 |
= |
91 |
% |
5 |
= |
7 |
% |
1 |
= |
1 |
% |
0 |
|
5=7% |
|
confirmation: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
THC |
|
2 |
= |
3 |
% |
2 |
= |
3 |
% |
65 |
= |
94 |
% |
0 |
|
2=50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Methadone: negative (<300 µg/l) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Summary statistics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
screening: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
FP* |
|
FN* |
||||||||||
|
methadone |
2 |
= |
3 |
% |
54 |
= |
78 |
% |
13 |
= |
19 |
% |
2=4% |
|
0 |
|
|
EDDP |
|
5 |
= |
7 |
% |
2 |
= |
3 |
% |
62 |
= |
90 |
% |
0 |
|
2=29% |
|
confirmation: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
methadone |
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
7 |
= |
10 |
% |
62 |
= |
90 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
EDDP |
|
4 |
= |
6 |
% |
1 |
= |
1 |
% |
64 |
= |
93 |
% |
0 |
|
1=20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benzodiazepines: negative (<200 µg/l) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Summary statistics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
screening: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
FP* |
|
FN* |
||||||||||
|
|
15 |
= |
22 |
% |
46 |
= |
67 |
% |
8 |
= |
12 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
confirmation: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
2 |
= |
3 |
% |
67 |
= |
97 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barbiturates: negative (<200 µg/l) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Summary statistics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
screening: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
FP* |
|
FN* |
||||||||||
|
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
42 |
= |
61 |
% |
27 |
= |
39 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
confirmation: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
1 |
= |
1 |
% |
68 |
= |
99 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethanol: negative (<100 mg/l) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Summary statistics: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
screening: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
FP* |
|
FN* |
||||||||||
|
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
16 |
= |
23 |
% |
53 |
= |
77 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
confirmation: |
pos. |
neg. |
not tested |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
0 |
= |
0 |
% |
16 |
= |
23 |
% |
53 |
= |
77 |
% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other drugs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary statistics: |
||||||||||||||||
|
number of laboratories: |
69 |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
pos. |
neg. |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
ethylglucuronide |
|
3 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cotinine,bromazepam |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FP* = False Positive; FN* = False Negative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DOA Ronde 2011.1 A
Casus:
The urine sample is from an off-shore worker returninh from his weekend leave. Please perform a
screening and add your comment.
This sample consisted of pooled cannabis positive urine samples of patiėnts.
Results:
| Cannabinoids: screening positive (>50 µg/l) | |||||
| Summary statistics: | |||||
| number of laboratories: 69 | |||||
| screening: | pos. | neg. | not tested | FP* | FN* |
| 63=91% | 5=7% | 1=1% | 0 | 5=7% | |
| confirmation: | pos. | neg. | not tested | ||
| THC | 2=3% | 2=3% | 65=94% | 0 | 2=50% |
Review by drs. P.G.M. Zweipfenning:
From 68 participating laboratories, 62 found cannabis positive with the cut-off
value of 50 microg/L. 5 Participants reported negative: 1 with Architect and 4x
with a quick- or self test. 1 lab did not report at all. The number of labs that
did a confirmation of cannabis was surprisingly low: Only 4. We prepared this
sample to show the differences with screening and confirmation between spiked
and real samples.
The sample was prepared form urine samples from patients in drug treatment
clinics with a high cannabis score. The pool was diluted with blanc urine until
the cannabis value was somewhat above 100 microg/L as measured with the assay in
my own lab. When it was ready the pool had to be transported from Amsterdam to
The Hague and had to await its turn to be dispensed into the tubes that were
send to you. Only shortly before it was send to The Hague we noticed that some
signal on benzodiazepines and methadone/EDDP could be positive on a trace
level/around cut-off values. We decided then to ignore this. So those of you who
found these groups positive were in fact correct. The mean value of the immuno
assays found positive was about 20-25% lower than directly after preparation of
the diluted pool. I tried to get a value of around 2x the cut-off and expected
some decrease, in that sense we succeeded.
Most
of the participants reported cannabis positive. The mean value of the I.A.
results was 93 with a s.d. of 14 micog/L. Not bad at all. This time I will of
course not go into the trueness of the mean value