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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison between the CEDIA and EMIT II immunoassays for the determination of benzodiazepines.
    Author: Way BA, Walton KG, Koenig JW, Eveland BJ, Scott MG.
    Journal: Clin Chim Acta; 1998 Mar 09; 271(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 9564553.
    Abstract:
    We evaluated a new, qualitative immunoassay for benzodiazepines in urine using CEDIA technology on the Hitachi 747 and compared its performance to an immunoassay using EMIT II methodology on the same instrument. A total of 500 urine samples received for routine drug screen analysis were prospectively examined for benzodiazepines by both methods. Samples producing positive results by either immunoassay method were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Available medical records were reviewed for patients whose samples produced discrepant immunoassay results or that were positive in both immunoassays but negative by GC-MS. Samples that produced negative results in both immunoassays were not subjected to GC-MS analysis. Therefore, identification of an immunoassay result as a false negative only occurred when the sample produced a positive value in only one of the two immunoassays and was confirmed as positive by either GC-MS or medical record review. Following initial immunoassay screening and confirmation by GC-MS, a medical record review and reanalysis of GC-MS data was performed. After this in-depth analysis of the data, the CEDIA method produced 60 true-positives, 7 false positives and no false negatives. The EMIT II method produced 47 true positives, 1 fase positive and 13 false negatives. These differences appear to be due to the CEDIA assay being more sensitive for detection of lorazepam.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]