What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to evaluate the clinical applicability and analytical performance of oral fluid microsampling as an alternative to urine analysis.

Evaluation of oral fluid microsampling as a urine surrogate matrix in substance use disorder care: clinical applicability and analytical performance

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Evaluation reveals oral fluid screening improves patient acceptability and analytical performance in addiction treatment.

This research aims to evaluate the clinical applicability and analytical performance of oral fluid microsampling as an alternative to urine analysis.
Collected fifty paired urine and oral fluid samples from patients with substance use disorders.
Compared urine immunoassays with oral fluid screening using high-performance liquid chromatography.
Assessed drug detectability focusing on amfetamines, benzodiazepines, buprenorphine, cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, methadone, and opiates.
90% of patients found oral fluid microsampling acceptable compared to 28% for urine collection.
Screening agreement between urine and oral fluid exceeded 88%.
Benzodiazepines were less detectable in oral fluid, while cocaine and cannabis had longer detection windows.

Thiebot et al. (2026) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Evaluation reveals oral fluid screening improves patient acceptability and analytical performance in addiction treatment.

This research aims to evaluate the clinical applicability and analytical performance of oral fluid microsampling as an alternative to urine analysis.
Collected fifty paired urine and oral fluid samples from patients with substance use disorders.
Compared urine immunoassays with oral fluid screening using high-performance liquid chromatography.
Assessed drug detectability focusing on amfetamines, benzodiazepines, buprenorphine, cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, methadone, and opiates.
90% of patients found oral fluid microsampling acceptable compared to 28% for urine collection.
Screening agreement between urine and oral fluid exceeded 88%.
Benzodiazepines were less detectable in oral fluid, while cocaine and cannabis had longer detection windows.

Thiebot et al. (2026) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark