MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112800

Медицинская библиотека · Forensic science international · 2025

Comparative performance evaluation of DRI and KIMS immunoassays for forensic drug screening in urine.

Kim Jihyun, Kang Seojin, Lee Nahyun, Kim Siyeon

СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

Rapid and reliable detection of illicit drugs such as methamphetamine and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is critical in forensic toxicology. Immunoassay-based screening methods offer time-efficient alternatives to instrumental techniques, especially for high-throughput forensic applications. This study aims to comparatively evaluate the analytical performance of two widely used DRI and KIMS immunoassay platforms in detecting these drugs in human urine samples, with a focus on forensic applicability. A total of 866 urine samples were analyzed using both DRI and KIMS-based immunoassays. Key performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, cross-reactivity, and cut-off concordance were assessed. All results were compared to mass spectrometry-confirmed reference data. Both platforms demonstrated acceptable performance for preliminary drug screening. However, variations were observed in detection sensitivity for THC and in false-positive rates for methamphetamine. In conclusion, both systems are suitable for high-throughput forensic drug screening. And the findings provide practical guidance for forensic laboratories selecting immunoassay platforms for drugs of abuse screening.

Для цитирования: Kim Jihyun, Kang Seojin, Lee Nahyun, Kim Siyeon. Comparative performance evaluation of DRI and KIMS immunoassays for forensic drug screening in urine.. Forensic science international. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112800.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.