期刊
HELIYON
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 -出版社
CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14630
关键词
Cannabis; Impaired driving; DUIC; Systematic review
With the increasing legalization of recreational cannabis in many countries, it is crucial to have roadside screening programs to detect and deter driving under the influence of cannabis. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of roadside screening tests for cannabis use. The review included 101 studies and found that oral fluid tests showed the most promise for detecting blood THC levels over legal limits, while urine tests were generally not recommended and observational tests needed improvements in sensitivity.
As more countries legalize recreational cannabis, roadside screening programs are imperative to detect and deter driving under the influence of cannabis. This systematic review evaluated roadside screening tests for cannabis use. We searched six databases (inception-March 2020) and grey literature sources for primary studies evaluating test characteristics of roadside screening tests for cannabis use compared to laboratory tests for cannabinoids in blood or oral fluid. The synthesis was focused on sensitivity and specificity of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detection. 101 studies were included. Oral fluid tests were higher in specificity and lower in sensitivity compared to urine tests when evaluated against blood laboratory tests. Oral fluid tests were higher in sensitivity and similar in specificity compared to observational tests when eval-uated against blood and oral fluid laboratory tests. Sensitivity was variable among oral fluid tests; two instrumented immunoassays (Draeger DrugTest 5000 [5 ng/mL THC cut-off] and Alere DDS 2 Mobile Test System) appeared to perform best, but definitive conclusions could not be drawn due to imprecise estimates. Specificities were similar. Overall, oral fluid tests showed the most promise for use in roadside screening for blood THC levels over legal limits; their continued development and testing are warranted. Urine tests are generally inadvisable, and observational tests require sensitivity improvements.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据