Journal of toxicology. Clinical toxicology · 1996
Urine toxicology screens in drivers suspected of driving while impaired from drugs.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Tomaszewski C, Kirk M, Bingham E, Saltzman B, Cook R, Kulig K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Police departments, in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have developed a standardized evaluation aimed at identifying drivers impaired by drugs other than ethanol. These evaluations are performed by specially trained police officers known as Drug Recognition Experts.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the evaluations of 242 drivers detained for driving while impaired in the City and County of Denver from January 1, 1988 to June 30, 1990.
RESULTS: All drivers had urine toxicology screens performed, which were positive for a mean 1.2 +/- 0.9 SD (range zero to four) for drugs having the potential for causing driving impairment. The 193/242 urine screens (79.8%) testing positive showed the following drugs: cannabis 162 (66.9%), stimulants (including cocaine metabolites) 80 (33.1%), depressants (benzodiazepines and barbiturates) 24 (9.9%), narcotics 12 (5.0%), inhalants (toluene) 1 (0.4%), hallucinogens (LSD) 1 (0.4%), and other 3 (1.2%). Drug Recognition Experts, based on their initial evaluation, were able to predict correctly some or all of the drugs found on the urine screens in 178/242 (73.6%) of cases. Overall agreement between the Drug Recognition Experts opinions and urine screen results had a kappa value (p < 0.05) of 0.41.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a high rate (79.8%) of positive urine toxicology screens in drivers suspected of nonethanol drug impairment. In most cases, Drug Recognition Experts were able to reliably predict the results of these screens.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the evaluations of 242 drivers detained for driving while impaired in the City and County of Denver from January 1, 1988 to June 30, 1990.
RESULTS: All drivers had urine toxicology screens performed, which were positive for a mean 1.2 +/- 0.9 SD (range zero to four) for drugs having the potential for causing driving impairment. The 193/242 urine screens (79.8%) testing positive showed the following drugs: cannabis 162 (66.9%), stimulants (including cocaine metabolites) 80 (33.1%), depressants (benzodiazepines and barbiturates) 24 (9.9%), narcotics 12 (5.0%), inhalants (toluene) 1 (0.4%), hallucinogens (LSD) 1 (0.4%), and other 3 (1.2%). Drug Recognition Experts, based on their initial evaluation, were able to predict correctly some or all of the drugs found on the urine screens in 178/242 (73.6%) of cases. Overall agreement between the Drug Recognition Experts opinions and urine screen results had a kappa value (p < 0.05) of 0.41.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a high rate (79.8%) of positive urine toxicology screens in drivers suspected of nonethanol drug impairment. In most cases, Drug Recognition Experts were able to reliably predict the results of these screens.