These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11465347)

  • 1. Comparison of eight commercial on-site screening devices for drugs-of-abuse testing.
    Leino A; Saarimies J; Grönholm M; Lillsunde P
    Scand J Clin Lab Invest; 2001 Jul; 61(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 11465347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of three commercial tests for buprenorphine screening in urine.
    Leino A; Loo BM
    Ann Clin Biochem; 2007 Nov; 44(Pt 6):563-5. PubMed ID: 17961313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A field evaluation of five on-site drug-testing devices.
    Crouch DJ; Hersch RK; Cook RF; Frank JF; Walsh JM
    J Anal Toxicol; 2002 Oct; 26(7):493-9. PubMed ID: 12423006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of Triage screening for drugs of abuse in postmortem blood and urine samples.
    Moriya F; Hashimoto Y
    Nihon Hoigaku Zasshi; 1997 Jun; 51(3):214-9. PubMed ID: 9301227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparative evaluation of the instant-view 5-panel test card with OnTrak TesTcup Pro 5: comparison with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
    Moody DE; Fang WB; Andrenyak DM; Monti KM; Jones C
    J Anal Toxicol; 2006; 30(1):50-6. PubMed ID: 16620532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Analysis of tools, methods and results of toxicological screening for detection of drug abuse in Italian professional drivers].
    Rosso GL
    Med Lav; 2013; 104(1):30-43. PubMed ID: 23520885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of a point-of-care testing product for drugs of abuse; testing site is a key variable.
    Kranzler HR; Stone J; McLaughlin L
    Drug Alcohol Depend; 1995 Nov; 40(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 8746925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Application of the Triage panel for drugs of abuse to forensic blood samples.
    Moriya F; Hashimoto Y
    Nihon Hoigaku Zasshi; 1996 Apr; 50(2):50-6. PubMed ID: 8691649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Laboratory evaluation and field application of roadside oral fluid collectors and drug testing devices.
    Crouch DJ; Walsh JM; Cangianelli L; Quintela O
    Ther Drug Monit; 2008 Apr; 30(2):188-95. PubMed ID: 18367979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Monitoring opiate use in substance abuse treatment patients with sweat and urine drug testing.
    Huestis MA; Cone EJ; Wong CJ; Umbricht A; Preston KL
    J Anal Toxicol; 2000 Oct; 24(7):509-21. PubMed ID: 11043653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison between on-site immunoassay drug-testing devices and laboratory results.
    Grönholm M; Lillsunde P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2001 Sep; 121(1-2):37-46. PubMed ID: 11516886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A multiple-site laboratory evaluation of three on-site urinalysis drug-testing devices.
    Crouch DJ; Frank JF; Farrell LJ; Karsch HM; Klaunig JE
    J Anal Toxicol; 1998 Oct; 22(6):493-502. PubMed ID: 9788525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Urine testing for cocaine abuse: metabolic and excretion patterns following different routes of administration and methods for detection of false-negative results.
    Cone EJ; Sampson-Cone AH; Darwin WD; Huestis MA; Oyler JM
    J Anal Toxicol; 2003 Oct; 27(7):386-401. PubMed ID: 14606991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Performance evaluation of on-site oral fluid drug screening devices in normal police procedure in Germany.
    Musshoff F; Hokamp EG; Bott U; Madea B
    Forensic Sci Int; 2014 May; 238():120-4. PubMed ID: 24699311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detection of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and amphetamine-type stimulants in oral fluid using the Rapid Stat point-of-collection drug-testing device.
    Röhrich J; Zörntlein S; Becker J; Urban R
    J Anal Toxicol; 2010 Apr; 34(3):155-61. PubMed ID: 20406540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Papain: a novel urine adulterant.
    Burrows DL; Nicolaides A; Rice PJ; Dufforc M; Johnson DA; Ferslew KE
    J Anal Toxicol; 2005; 29(5):275-95. PubMed ID: 16105251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the accuracy of on-site multi-analyte drug testing devices in the determination of the prevalence of illicit drugs in drivers.
    Buchan BJ; Walsh JM; Leaverton PE
    J Forensic Sci; 1998 Mar; 43(2):395-9. PubMed ID: 9544550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Optimization of cloned enzyme donor immunoassay cut-offs for drugs of abuse in whole blood of drivers involved in road accidents.
    Pelletti G; Garagnani M; Rossi F; Roffi R; Barone R; Pelotti S
    Forensic Sci Int; 2019 Jan; 294():27-33. PubMed ID: 30447484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of immunochemical drug screenings of whole blood samples. A retrospective optimization of cutoff levels after confirmation-analysis on GC-MS and HPLC-DAD.
    Kroener L; Musshoff F; Madea B
    J Anal Toxicol; 2003; 27(4):205-12. PubMed ID: 12820742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of random and postaccident urine drug tests in southern Indiana coal miners.
    Price JW
    J Addict Med; 2012 Dec; 6(4):253-7. PubMed ID: 22895464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.