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: 2673588)

  • 1. Ranitidine and high concentrations of phenylpropanolamine cross react in the EMIT monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay.
    Grinstead GF
    Clin Chem; 1989 Sep; 35(9):1998-9. PubMed ID: 2673588
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Ranitidine interference with the monoclonal EMIT d.a.u. amphetamine/methamphetamine immunoassay.
    Poklis A; Hall KV; Still J; Binder SR
    J Anal Toxicol; 1991; 15(2):101-3. PubMed ID: 2051743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Elimination of labetalol-induced false positives in drug analyses.
    Wu A; Bretl DD; Pearson ML; Wolffe GS; Miller ML
    Clin Chem; 1986 Feb; 32(2):407. PubMed ID: 3510786
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of three commercial amphetamine immunoassays for detection of methamphetamine, methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, and methylenedioxyethylamphetamine.
    Ruangyuttikarn W; Moody DE
    J Anal Toxicol; 1988; 12(4):229-33. PubMed ID: 2903272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Ranitidine cross-reactivity in the EMIT d.a.u. Monoclonal Amphetamine/Methamphetamine Assay.
    Kelly KL
    Clin Chem; 1990 Jul; 36(7):1391-2. PubMed ID: 2372968
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine concentrations in human urine samples and a comparison of the specificity of DRI amphetamines and Abuscreen online (KIMS) amphetamines screening immunoassays.
    Stout PR; Klette KL; Horn CK
    J Forensic Sci; 2004 Jan; 49(1):160-4. PubMed ID: 14979364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ranitidine interference with standard amphetamine immunoassay.
    Liu L; Wheeler SE; Rymer JA; Lower D; Zona J; Peck Palmer OM; Tamama K
    Clin Chim Acta; 2015 Jan; 438():307-8. PubMed ID: 25242739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of six commercial amphetamine and methamphetamine immunoassays for cross-reactivity to phenylpropanolamine and ephedrine in urine.
    D'Nicuola J; Jones R; Levine B; Smith ML
    J Anal Toxicol; 1992; 16(4):211-3. PubMed ID: 1501473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reagent lot-to-lot variability in sensitivity for amphetamine with the Syva Emit II Monoclonal Amphetamine/Methamphetamine assay.
    Singh J
    J Anal Toxicol; 1997; 21(2):174-5. PubMed ID: 9083839
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. MDMA and MDA cross reactivity observed with Abbott TDx amphetamine/methamphetamine reagents.
    Ramos JM; Fitzgerald RL; Poklis A
    Clin Chem; 1988 May; 34(5):991. PubMed ID: 2897259
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Analytical performance evaluation of EMIT II monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay: more specificity than EMIT d.a.u. monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay.
    Dasgupta A; Saldana S; Kinnaman G; Smith M; Johansen K
    Clin Chem; 1993 Jan; 39(1):104-8. PubMed ID: 8419030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [The urinary screening and identification of amphetamines in clinical toxicology laboratory--VGH].
    Lin WL; Deng JF; Chou LJ; Hung DZ; Tsai WJ
    Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei); 1991 Oct; 48(4):305-9. PubMed ID: 1659927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. False-positive results with Emit II amphetamine/methamphetamine assay in users of common psychotropic drugs.
    Smith-Kielland A; Olsen KM; Christophersen AS
    Clin Chem; 1995 Jun; 41(6 Pt 1):951-2. PubMed ID: 7768025
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Lack of Detection of New Amphetamine-Like Drugs Using Conventional Urinary Immunoassays.
    Begeman A; Franssen EJF
    Ther Drug Monit; 2018 Feb; 40(1):135-139. PubMed ID: 29194289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the sensitivity and specificity of six immunoassays for the detection of amphetamines in urine.
    Verstraete AG; Heyden FV
    J Anal Toxicol; 2005; 29(5):359-64. PubMed ID: 16105261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Buflomedil interference with the monoclonal EMIT d.a.u. amphetamine/methamphetamine immunoassay.
    Papa P; Rocchi L; Mainardi C; Donzelli G
    Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem; 1997 May; 35(5):369-70. PubMed ID: 9189741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Matrix effect and cross-reactivity of select amphetamine-type substances, designer analogues, and putrefactive amines using the Bio-Quant direct ELISA presumptive assays for amphetamine and methamphetamine.
    Apollonio LG; Whittall IR; Pianca DJ; Kyd JM; Maher WA
    J Anal Toxicol; 2007 May; 31(4):208-13. PubMed ID: 17555644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Amphetamine as an artifact of methamphetamine during periodate degradation of interfering ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine: an improved procedure for accurate quantitation of amphetamines in urine.
    Paul BD; Past MR; McKinley RM; Foreman JD; McWhorter LK; Snyder JJ
    J Anal Toxicol; 1994 Oct; 18(6):331-6. PubMed ID: 7823540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of the Abbott ADx Amphetamine/Methamphetamine II abused drug assay: comparison to TDx, EMIT, and GC/MS methods.
    Przekop MA; Manno JE; Kunsman GW; Cockerham KR; Manno BR
    J Anal Toxicol; 1991; 15(6):323-6. PubMed ID: 1779660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A labetalol metabolite with analytical characteristics resembling amphetamines.
    Gilbert RB; Peng PI; Wong D
    J Anal Toxicol; 1995; 19(2):84-6. PubMed ID: 7769792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.