Comparison between the CEDIA and EMIT II immunoassays for the determination of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity1245 @entity15 @entity2934
We evaluated a new, qualitative immunoassay for @entity1245 in urine using CEDIA technology on the Hitachi 747 and compared its performance to an immunoassay using EMIT II methodology on the same instrument. A total of 500 urine samples received for routine drug screen analysis were prospectively examined for @entity1245 by both methods. Samples producing positive results by either immunoassay method were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC- @entity15 ). Available medical records were reviewed for @entity1 whose samples produced discrepant immunoassay results or that were positive in both immunoassays but negative by GC- @entity15 . Samples that produced negative results in both immunoassays were not subjected to GC- @entity15 analysis. Therefore, identification of an immunoassay result as a false negative only occurred when the sample produced a positive value in only one of the two immunoassays and was confirmed as positive by either GC- @entity15 or medical record review. Following initial immunoassay screening and confirmation by GC- @entity15 , a medical record review and reanalysis of GC- @entity15 data was performed. After this in-depth analysis of the data, the CEDIA method produced 60 true-positives, 7 false positives and no false negatives. The EMIT II method produced 47 true positives, 1 fase positive and 13 false negatives. These differences appear to be due to the CEDIA assay being more sensitive for detection of @entity2934 .
