Independent study · On-site clinical testing
Laboratory and clinical evaluation of on-site urine drug testing (Scand J Clin Lab Invest, 2014)
A peer-reviewed Swedish evaluation of on-site urine drug testing compared with routine laboratory methods. It is not a study of home kits.
Read this first
P in the Cup does not perform the testing or certify these products. The figures below come from one source document and describe one study design. They are not a general accuracy rating, and a home screen result is preliminary until a laboratory confirms it. See what accuracy figures mean.
Identity
Exactly what this record covers
| Field | As stated in the source |
|---|---|
| Study | Laboratory and clinical evaluation of on-site urine drug testing |
| Authors | Beck O, Carlsson S, Tusic M, Olsson R, Franzen L, Hulten P (as listed on PubMed); Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden |
| Journal | Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 2014, volume 74, issue 8, pages 681-686; DOI 10.3109/00365513.2014.939995; PMID 25046332 |
| Product evaluated | Not named in the abstract |
| Design | On-site testing compared with routine laboratory methods, first in the laboratory alongside the routine method, then at a dependency clinic with samples sent to the laboratory |
| Sample size | Not stated in the abstract |
| Buy link | No verified retailer link. No retailer listing has been matched to this exact device and SKU. |
| Last reviewed | 21 October 2026 |
Results stated in the abstract
Study-specific figures
The abstract reports that the on-site products "did not perform with assigned cut-off levels", that reading the result was difficult in 3.2% of cases, and that 42% of all incorrect on-site results were false negatives. The authors judged performance not acceptable because of the number of false negatives.
| Metric | Value | Denominator | Reference | Tier | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 79% | Not stated in the abstract | Routine laboratory methods (as described in the abstract) | Unverified | Abstract, Results (PubMed 25046332) |
| Specificity | 96% | Not stated in the abstract | Routine laboratory methods (as described in the abstract) | Unverified | Abstract, Results (PubMed 25046332) |
| Overall agreement, laboratory study | 95% | Not stated in the abstract | Routine laboratory methods (as described in the abstract) | Unverified | Abstract, Results (PubMed 25046332) |
| Overall agreement, clinical study | 98% | Not stated in the abstract | Routine laboratory methods (as described in the abstract) | Unverified | Abstract, Results (PubMed 25046332) |
Limitations
- The accessible abstract does not name the product or give sample counts, so its figures cannot be tied to any device; on-site clinical testing, not home use.
- Because the abstract does not name the product, these figures cannot be attached to any device on this site; they are graded Unverified for that reason, not because the study is weak.
- Clinical on-site testing by staff, not home use by consumers.
Sources
- PubMed abstract, PMID 25046332 (U.S. National Library of Medicine; opened and read 2026-10-21).
General education only, not medical, legal or purchasing advice. Found an error? See the corrections log.
Page last updated