Test Kit Research & Comparison Center
Independent research
Peer-reviewed studies by researchers who did not make the devices. Both studies here looked at professional point-of-care or on-site testing, not home kits.
What these studies can and cannot tell you
These are on-site and point-of-care studies. They show how much performance can vary between devices and between drugs. They are not evidence about any home kit, and their figures must not be applied to products they did not test. We use only what the publicly available abstracts state and do not reproduce subscriber-only tables.
Three point-of-care devices compared with mass spectrometry (2022)
Waggoner DC, Delaney SR, Korpi-Steiner NL. "Comparative Analyses of Three Point-of-Care Urine Drug Test Devices' Performance Characteristics for Use in Ambulatory Clinic Settings." The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine 2022;7(2):495-502. DOI 10.1093/jalm/jfab095.
Design
106 residual urine specimens were tested with the Profile-V MEDTOX Scan drugs of abuse test, the Quidel Triage TOX Drug Screen and the Quidel Triage Rapid OXY-BUP-MDMA panel, and compared with quantitative mass spectrometry using manufacturer and reference-method cutoffs. Mass spectrometry found one or more drugs in 77% (84 of 106) of samples.
Results stated in the abstract
Overall specificity was 90.1% (Profile-V MEDTOX Scan), 89.0% (Triage TOX Drug Screen) and 50.0% (Rapid OXY-BUP-MDMA), using manufacturer-stated cutoffs. Overall sensitivity was 98.6%, 97.0% and 100% respectively. Each device had variable performance across drug classes. The authors conclude that the best device may depend on the patient population and drugs of interest, and that false positive and negative results are possible.
Limitations
- Professional devices in ambulatory clinics, not home kits.
- Overall figures pooled across drug classes; per-device denominators and drug-level results are in the subscriber-only full text.
- Funding and conflicts of interest are not stated in the abstract.
Evidence tier: A for the three evaluated devices only. Full record with figures and sources.
On-site urine drug testing compared with the laboratory (2014)
Beck O, Carlsson S, Tusic M, Olsson R, Franzen L, Hulten P. "Laboratory and clinical evaluation of on-site urine drug testing." Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation 2014;74(8):681-686. DOI 10.3109/00365513.2014.939995.
Design
On-site urine drug testing was compared with routine laboratory methods, first in the laboratory alongside the routine method and then at a dependency clinic, with samples sent to the laboratory for further analysis.
Results stated in the abstract
Specificity 96% and sensitivity 79%. Of all incorrect on-site results, 42% were false negatives. Overall agreement with the laboratory was 95% in the laboratory study and 98% in the clinical study. The products "did not perform with assigned cut-off levels", and reading the result was difficult in 3.2% of cases. The authors judged performance not acceptable because of the number of false negatives.
Limitations
- The abstract does not name the product or give sample counts, so these figures cannot be attached to any device. That is why the record is graded Unverified.
- On-site testing in clinical settings, not home use.
- High overall agreement here sat alongside 79% sensitivity: a high agreement figure does not mean positives were reliably detected.
Sources
- PubMed 34597363, abstract of Waggoner et al. 2022 and the article page at Oxford Academic (full text for subscribers) (read 21 October 2026). Supports: everything stated about the 2022 study.
- PubMed 25046332, abstract of Beck et al. 2014 (read 21 October 2026). Supports: everything stated about the 2014 study.
Page last updated