Search

Between 2006 and 2010, six population based case-control studies were conducted as part of the European research-project DRUID (DRiving Under the Influence of Drugs, alcohol and medicines). The aim of these case-control studies was to calculate odds ratios indicating the relative risk of serious injury in car crashes. The calculated odds ratios in these studies showed large variations, despite the use of uniform guidelines for the study designs. The main objective of the present article is to provide insight into the presence of random and systematic errors in the six DRUID case-control studies. Relevant information was gathered from the DRUID-reports for eleven indicators for errors. The results showed that differences between the odds ratios in the DRUID case-control studies may indeed be (partially) explained by random and systematic errors. Selection bias and errors due to small sample sizes and cell counts were the most frequently observed errors in the six DRUID case-control studies. Therefore, it is recommended that epidemiological studies that assess the risk of psychoactive substances in traffic pay specific attention to avoid these potential sources of random and systematic errors. The list of indicators that was identified in this study is useful both as guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and for future epidemiological studies in the field of driving under the influence to minimize sources of errors already at the start of the study., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Study Objectives: To determine the influence of sample collection for two different collection methods on THC concentrations and to compare THC concentrations collected by both methods., Methods: A total of 136 pairs of oral fluid samples from subjects who had recently smoked Cannabis were obtained by the non-acidic Statsure oral fluid collection device and by ordinary spit tubes. Oral fluid was analyzed for THC by LC-MS/MS. Bland-Altman plots were used for the quantitative analysis of repeatability, whereas Cohen's kappa was used for qualitative analysis to determine the consistency of the results with regard to the Belgian legal limit., Results: Repeatability of both sampling methods was very low. The Statsure device had a better rate of agreement when compared with the Belgian legal limit than the spitting method. THC concentrations of samples collected by spit tubes were on average a factor 5.9 higher than the corresponding concentrations in samples collected by the Statsure device., Conclusions: The repeatability of both the Statsure collection method and the ordinary spit tubes was low when applied to subjects who had consumed Cannabis very recently. Furthermore, THC concentrations were higher in samples obtained by spitting than samples collected with Statsure. These results may have implications for confirmation analysis in oral fluid, when applied for legal purposes., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)