Talk:Drugwipe test

Rapit test?[edit]

The article refers to a 'rapit test', without defining what 'rapit' is. I'm not clear if this is a misspelling, a localised spelling, or a term of the craft. I'm removing it until we can pin it down.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with accuracy[edit]

There is a problem with accuracy claims. Article nowhere defines what the accuracy means. Is it for which drug? Is it false positives to real positives? Is it false negatives to positive? And how is the sample group defined? The sites articles claim that the sampled people were about 30% positive, and then got the 94-97% reliability figure for amphetamine. But if the group has less drug user in the test positive group will have more false positives, and we will get a figure or accuracy that isn't 90%. For example if none of the sample group have used amphetamine then with a group of about 100 there will be about 5 false positives, and the accuracy will be 0%. The whole claim of accuracy is really marketingspeak as the end accuracy is dependant of the sample group.

This shows in Finland as Finlands health officials have found out that for cocaine, opioids and cannabis the false positives outnumbered real positives two to one. So in finland claiming 94-97% of accuracy is really a problem to the 2 out of 3 that will be banned from driving upto a month until blood test arrives.

Instead of stating accuracy as a percentage the test should state the false positives percentage when the subjects are drugfree, and false negatives when the subjects have been using drugs. There is no way to say what the ratio of false positives to false negatives is if the sample size isn't known. And the figures should be stated by the individual drugs, not as I suspect, for only the best one. You can't claim accuracy for a test that gives out false positives. Talitintti (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy is correct[edit]

Drugwipe has been extensively studied for the past 15 years. Additional references will be added to the page so that readers can form their own opinions. See DRUIDS study.

Drugwipe was tested by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in 1996. Drugwipe was used as a 'surface' test and in that study, Drugwipe was 100% accurate with zero false positives, 100% true negatives.

Sweat and Saliva testing studies were conducted several years later with 94-97% accuracy.Purechi (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi[reply]

As you clearly don't understand the problem could you defiine the accuracy. Is it true positives out of all positive? If nobody in the test group has used any drugs you will end up with at least 5-10 false positives out of 100. That would make the test accuracy 0% with that group, as all positives were false. And the accurace isn't given per drug, but as a single figure. I doubt it is same for every drug. Instead of giving a accuracy figure which to a layperson is misleading the persentage of false positives in a drugfree group and false negatives in a drugusers, and with each drug. In finland they have found that compared to blood tests for cocaine, opiats and cannabis the test gives that many false positives that the test has practicly no use. Here's the pdf of the ombudsman statement. In finnish but google translator isnt completely inept with it, only somewhat. http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/thw.cgi/trip/?${APPL}=ereoapaa&${BASE}=ereoapaa&${THWIDS}=0.54/1291506834_277054&${TRIPPIFE}=PDF.pdf That independent study found the test lacking. Even the claim 100% sensitivity, meaning all negetives were true is false. With every drug there were a bunch of false negatives. Talitintti (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very badly sourced for something that must or should have been tested extensively before use. The Druid link is dead. The Finnish link is in Finnish. The rest of the article is completely unsourced. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Druid analysis of oral fluid screening devices put this one in the category of "promising". I would have thought it would be better to have an article on oral fluid screening devices rather than one promoting this particular device (which was not in fact the best performer). Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DRUID test didn't test for reliability, but was more of a police work productivity test. Mainly how easy and fast each test was. I think the sentence about DRUID test should be removed or either moved to under a new heading "Ease of use", or something. Talitintti (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well sort of but not quite. It says From a police perspective an oral fluid screening device is a piece of equipment to enhance traffic law enforcement. This kind of screening devices will never be that accurate that they can be used as evidence for an offence. Therefore these kind of devices are allowed to make mistakes. This is comparable to the policy for alcohol screening devices. In the PURS qualifications for the operability as well as for the sensitivity, the specificity, the accuracy and the positive and negative predictive values are provided. So far it's the only secondary reference (in English) in the article. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a distinction should be made here between 'surface' testing, 'sweat' testing, and 'saliva' testing. Each are different and cannot be compared in the same manner due to their different testing 'mediums'. The tests conducted in the earlier years were for 'surface' testing only. It was in these studies that Drugwipe was tested at 100% accuracy by the ONDCP. Surface testing detects the parent drug, so if it's there, it's there, if it's not, it's not. 'Sweat' and 'Saliva' testing introduce additional variables when you're testing 'individuals'. Saliva testing of course carries the shortest detection window, so it shows very 'recent' consumption, as does blood testing. There are a lot of variables with testing individuals for drug consumption because you have the open questions about how much of the specific drug they took, which drug they took, how potent the drug is, their exact body metabolism, etc. So, there may be varying results due to detection windows, if the drug is still detectable in the body, etc. For instance, if you compare saliva testing with urine testing, a person could smoke a joint and be tested within the hour using a saliva test, which is testing for the 'parent' drug...that person would most likely test positive on the saliva test. The urine test, on the other hand, is testing metabolites after the THC has been broken down in the system, therefore, a urine test would show negative. This is not necessarily a 'false' negative on the urine test, it simply means the metabolite is not present yet in the system to be detectable. Any 'on-site' test is simply meant to be a 'screening tool', not an evidentiary test. In the DRUIDS study, certain 'on-site, portable' tests performed better than others. A few of the tests were 'machine, table top' tests, which are not portable, however, are on the 'evidentiary' side. In most US states, a screening test can be used at the roadside to test drivers that they suspect may be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; however, these are only screening tests. The suspected individual would be either tested again using an evidentiary test or the device sent to a lab for confirmation testing. A driver is not convicted on a screening test, it's simply another tool for officers to help in their duties. Purechi (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi[reply]

I definitely agree with the notion that these tests aren't 100% accurate no matter what accuracy means (specificity, sensitivity, etc.) It's too simple of a test to be very accurate, much less perfectly accurate. No test is 100% accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.78.229 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with drug test[edit]

I will merge this article with drug test as there is not enough content for a separate article. Also, for an article about a certain brand (as opposed to a class of comparable products), there is clearly not enough notability. It is obvious that this article is maintained by an editor affiliated with the producer of this test and it is essentially an advertisement for this particular brand. Cacycle (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. These tests are plainly designed to be a quick, road-side "do we take this any further" tests rather than an actual analysis for evidential purposes so it will make a neat little paragraph on the Drug test page.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Not certain how this page got started separately, but it would definitely make a good fit under the 'drug test' article.Purechi (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi[reply]

I also support the merge suggestion, having spent an hour analysing all the edits, the discussion, and the discussion at WP:EAR. --Kudpung (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article turned into advertisement[edit]

Latest edit by Germanspikedhelmet has been a complete rewrite, turning this article from neutral to blatant advertisement93.106.162.243 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drugwipe test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Drugwipe test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]