Independent study · Professional point of care
Comparative analyses of three point-of-care urine drug test devices (J Appl Lab Med, 2022)
A peer-reviewed comparison of three professional point-of-care urine drug test devices against mass spectrometry. 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 | Comparative Analyses of Three Point-of-Care Urine Drug Test Devices' Performance Characteristics for Use in Ambulatory Clinic Settings |
| Authors | Derek C. Waggoner, Sarah R. Delaney, Nichole L. Korpi-Steiner |
| Journal | The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine, 2022, volume 7, issue 2, pages 495-502; DOI 10.1093/jalm/jfab095; PMID 34597363 |
| Devices evaluated | Profile-V MEDTOX Scan drugs of abuse test; Quidel Triage TOX Drug Screen; Quidel Triage Rapid OXY-BUP-MDMA panel |
| Setting | Ambulatory clinic (professional point-of-care) devices |
| Sample | 106 residual urine specimens; 84 of 106 (77%) positive for one or more drugs by quantitative mass spectrometry |
| Reference method | Mass spectrometry, with manufacturer and reference-method cutoffs |
| Access | Full text for subscribers; we use only the publicly available 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
Overall sensitivity and specificity, by device
These are overall figures, pooled across drug classes, using each device's manufacturer-stated cutoffs. The abstract says each device "had variable performance across each drug class"; the analyte-level results are in the subscriber-only full text and are not reproduced here.
| Device | Metric | Value | Denominator | Reference | Tier | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Profile-V MEDTOX Scan drugs of abuse test | Overall sensitivity | 98.6% | Not stated per device in the abstract (106 specimens in total; 84/106 positive for one or more drugs by mass spectrometry) | Quantitative mass spectrometry | A | Abstract, Results (PubMed 34597363) |
| Profile-V MEDTOX Scan drugs of abuse test | Overall specificity | 90.1% | Not stated per device in the abstract (106 specimens in total; 84/106 positive for one or more drugs by mass spectrometry) | Quantitative mass spectrometry | A | Abstract, Results (PubMed 34597363) |
| Quidel Triage TOX Drug Screen | Overall sensitivity | 97% | Not stated per device in the abstract (106 specimens in total; 84/106 positive for one or more drugs by mass spectrometry) | Quantitative mass spectrometry | A | Abstract, Results (PubMed 34597363) |
| Quidel Triage TOX Drug Screen | Overall specificity | 89% | Not stated per device in the abstract (106 specimens in total; 84/106 positive for one or more drugs by mass spectrometry) | Quantitative mass spectrometry | A | Abstract, Results (PubMed 34597363) |
| Quidel Triage Rapid OXY-BUP-MDMA panel | Overall sensitivity | 100% | Not stated per device in the abstract (106 specimens in total; 84/106 positive for one or more drugs by mass spectrometry) | Quantitative mass spectrometry | A | Abstract, Results (PubMed 34597363) |
| Quidel Triage Rapid OXY-BUP-MDMA panel | Overall specificity | 50% | Not stated per device in the abstract (106 specimens in total; 84/106 positive for one or more drugs by mass spectrometry) | Quantitative mass spectrometry | A | Abstract, Results (PubMed 34597363) |
The authors conclude that the Profile-V MEDTOX Scan showed the best overall sensitivity and specificity of the three, that false positive and false negative results are possible, and that the best device may depend on the patient population and drugs of interest.
Limitations
- Three professional point-of-care devices, 106 residual clinical specimens; we use only the abstract's pooled figures. Not evidence about any home kit.
- Tier A applies only to these three devices, as tested in this study. It cannot be extended to other devices or to home kits.
- Pooled figures hide drug-by-drug differences; per-device denominators are not given in the abstract.
- Funding and conflicts of interest are not stated in the abstract and have not been checked in the full text.
Sources
- Article page (full text for subscribers) (The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine / Oxford University Press; opened and read 2026-10-21).
- PubMed abstract, PMID 34597363 (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