184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7876791)
1. Evaluation of the Abuscreen ONLINE assay for amphetamines on the Hitachi 737: comparison with EMIT and GC/MS methods.
Baker DP; Murphy MS; Shepp PF; Royo VR; Caldarone ME; Escoto B; Salamone SJ
J Forensic Sci; 1995 Jan; 40(1):108-12. PubMed ID: 7876791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Precision and comparability of Abuscreen OnLine assays for drugs of abuse screening in urine on Hitachi 917 with other immunochemical tests and with GC/MS.
Boettcher M; Haenseler E; Hoke C; Nichols J; Raab D; Domke I
Clin Lab; 2000; 46(1-2):49-52. PubMed ID: 10745981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Evaluation of DRI enzyme immunoassays for drugs-of-abuse screening on the Cobas Mira.
Broussard LA; Hanson L
Clin Lab Sci; 1997; 10(2):83-6. PubMed ID: 10166356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Drug screening and confirmation by GC-MS: comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS against 10 drugs between US and England laboratories.
Lu NT; Taylor BG
Forensic Sci Int; 2006 Mar; 157(2-3):106-16. PubMed ID: 15899564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Comparison of the MTP immunoassay with EMIT in blood screening for drugs].
Käferstein H; Sticht G
Arch Kriminol; 1998; 202(5-6):165-72. PubMed ID: 10023491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparison of ONTRAK TESTCUP, abuscreen ONTRAK, abuscreen ONLINE, and GC/MS urinalysis test results.
Crouch DJ; Cheever ML; Andrenyak DM; Kuntz DJ; Loughmiller DL
J Forensic Sci; 1998 Jan; 43(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 9456522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Confirmation of Syva enzyme multiple immunoassay technique (EMIT) d.a.u. and Roche Abuscreen radioimmunoassay (RIA) (125I) urine cannabinoid immunoassays by gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric (GC/MS) and bonded-phase adsorption/thin-layer chromatographic (BPA-TLC) methods.
Kogan MJ; Al Razi J; Pierson DJ; Willson NJ
J Forensic Sci; 1986 Apr; 31(2):494-500. PubMed ID: 3011956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Substance abuse testing of urine by GC/MS in scanning mode evaluated by proficiency studies, TLC/GC, and EMIT.
Gibb RP; Cockerham H; Goldfogel GA; Lawson GM; Raisys VA
J Forensic Sci; 1993 Jan; 38(1):124-33. PubMed ID: 8381160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of the IDS One-Step ELISA kits for the detection of illicit drugs in hair.
Pujol ML; Cirimele V; Tritsch PJ; Villain M; Kintz P
Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Aug; 170(2-3):189-92. PubMed ID: 17628371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison and evaluation of DRI methamphetamine, DRI ecstasy, Abuscreen ONLINE amphetamine, and a modified Abuscreen ONLINE amphetamine screening immunoassays for the detection of amphetamine (AMP), methamphetamine (MTH), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in human urine.
Stout PR; Klette KL; Wiegand R
J Anal Toxicol; 2003; 27(5):265-9. PubMed ID: 12908938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. CEDIA for screening drugs of abuse in urine and the effect of adulterants.
Wu AH; Forte E; Casella G; Sun K; Hemphill G; Foery R; Schanzenbach H
J Forensic Sci; 1995 Jul; 40(4):614-8. PubMed ID: 7595298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Validation of the Cozart Amphetamine Microplate EIA for the analysis of amphetamines in oral fluid.
Cooper G; Wilson L; Reid C; Hand C; Spiehler V
Forensic Sci Int; 2006 Jun; 159(2-3):104-12. PubMed ID: 16115742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The online screening technique for urinary benzodiazepines: comparison with EMIT, FPIA, and GC-MS.
Beck O; Lin Z; Brodin K; Borg S; Hjemdahl P
J Anal Toxicol; 1997; 21(7):554-7. PubMed ID: 9399125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of immunoassays in screening for opiates, cannabinoids and amphetamines in post-mortem blood.
Hino Y; Ojanperä I; Rasanen I; Vuori E
Forensic Sci Int; 2003 Jan; 131(2-3):148-55. PubMed ID: 12590054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Simultaneous determination of amphetamines and amphetamine-derived designer drugs in human urine by GC-MS.
Maresová V; Chadt J; Prikryl L
Neuro Endocrinol Lett; 2006 Dec; 27 Suppl 2():121-4. PubMed ID: 17159795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Method comparison of EMIT II and online with RIA for drug screening.
Armbruster DA; Schwarzhoff RH; Pierce BL; Hubster EC
J Forensic Sci; 1993 Nov; 38(6):1326-41. PubMed ID: 8263477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Determination of amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine in urine by online solid-phase extraction and ion-pairing liquid chromatography with detection by electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.
Wu TY; Fuh MR
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom; 2005; 19(6):775-80. PubMed ID: 15712289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
