Skip to main content
PMC home page
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1988 Jul;78(7):817–819. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.7.817

The estimated predictive value of screening for illicit drugs in the workplace.

V E Wells 1, W Halperin 1, M Thun 1
PMCID: PMC1350340  PMID: 3381957

Abstract

This paper estimates the predictive values of screening tests for six illicit drugs of common concern in the workplace (amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, hallucinogens, marijuana, and opiates) using published information on test sensitivity and specificity and survey data on prevalence. Estimated predictive values (negative) were generally high, whereas the estimated predictive value of a positive test ranged from 1 per cent for amphetamines to 100 per cent for hallucinogens and was only 38 per cent for marijuana, the most prevalent drug.

Full text

PDF
817

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bompey S. H. Drugs in the workplace: from the batter's box to the boardroom. J Occup Med. 1986 Sep;28(9):825–832. doi: 10.1097/00043764-198609000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cole P., Morrison A. S. Basic issues in population screening for cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1980 May;64(5):1263–1272. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fletcher S. M. Urine screening for drugs by EMIT. J Forensic Sci Soc. 1981 Oct;21(4):327–332. doi: 10.1016/s0015-7368(81)71414-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Halperin W. E., Ratcliffe J., Frazier T. M., Wilson L., Becker S. P., Schulte P. A. Medical screening in the workplace: proposed principles. J Occup Med. 1986 Aug;28(8):547–552. doi: 10.1097/00043764-198608000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hansen H. J., Caudill S. P., Boone D. J. Crisis in drug testing. Results of CDC blind study. JAMA. 1985 Apr 26;253(16):2382–2387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Irving J., Leeb B., Foltz R. L., Cook C. E., Bursey J. T., Willette R. E. Evaluation of immunoassays for cannabinoids in urine. J Anal Toxicol. 1984 Jul-Aug;8(4):192–196. doi: 10.1093/jat/8.4.192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. LaMotte L. C., Jr, Guerrant G. O., Lewis D. S., Hall C. T. Comparison of laboratory performance with blind and mail-distributed proficiency testing samples. Public Health Rep. 1977 Nov-Dec;92(6):554–560. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mason M. F. Some realities and results of proficiency testing of laboratories performing toxicological analyses. J Anal Toxicol. 1981 Sep-Oct;5(5):201–208. doi: 10.1093/jat/5.5.201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sackett D. L., Holland W. W. Controversy in the detection of disease. Lancet. 1975 Aug 23;2(7930):357–359. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(75)92790-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sohn D., Simon J. Narcotics detection and industry. J Occup Med. 1970 Jan;12(1):6–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sutheimer C. A., Yarborough R., Hepler B. R., Sunshine I. Detection and confirmation of urinary cannabinoids. J Anal Toxicol. 1985 Jul-Aug;9(4):156–160. doi: 10.1093/jat/9.4.156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Whiting J. D., Manders W. W. Confirmation of a tetrahydrocannabinol metabolite in urine by gas chromatography. J Anal Toxicol. 1982 Jan-Feb;6(1):49–52. doi: 10.1093/jat/6.1.49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES