Cited by 378Forensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Oral fluid testing for drugs of abuse

Open access
Bosker, Wendy M, Huestis, Marilyn A·2009·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: Oral fluid (OF) is an exciting alternative matrix for monitoring drugs of abuse in workplace, clinical toxicology, criminal justice, and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) programs. During the last 5 years, scientific and technological advances in OF collection, point-of-collection testing devices, and screening and confirmation methods were achieved. Guidelines were proposed for workplace OF testing by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DUID testing by the European Union’s Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) program, and standardization of DUID research. Although OF testing is now commonplace in many monitoring programs, the greatest current limitation is the scarcity of controlled drug administration studies available to guide interpretation. Content: This review outlines OF testing advantages and limitations, and the progress in OF that has occurred during the last 5 years in collection, screening, confirmation, and interpretation of cannabinoids, opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, and benzodiazepines. We examine controlled drug administration studies, immunoassay and chromatographic methods, collection devices, point-of-collection testing device performance, and recent applications of OF testing. Summary: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration approval of OF testing was delayed because questions about drug OF disposition were not yet resolved, and collection device performance and testing assays required improvement. Here, we document the many advances achieved in the use of OF. Additional research is needed to identify new biomarkers, determine drug detection windows, characterize OF adulteration techniques, and evaluate analyte stability. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that OF offers multiple advantages as an alternative matrix for drug monitoring and has an important role in DUID, treatment, workplace, and criminal justice programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/clinchem.2008.108670

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The rate of diffusion into oral fluid is affected by lipophilicity, salivary pH, pKa, molecular size, un-ionized free drug blood concentration and membrane characteristics.

    “The rate of diffusion is affected by several factors including lipophilicity of the drug, salivary pH, pKa, molecular size, un-ionized free drug blood concentration and membrane characteristics (8–11).”

    From Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving and Motor Vehicle Fatalities—2021 Update (2021) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Summary (page unavailable) links drug transfer between blood and oral fluid to pKa, lipophilicity, pH differences, and free uncharged drug crossing membranes. It does not address molecular size or membrane characteristics as factors affecting the rate of diffusion, so the full list is not supported by this copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent developments within forensic toxicology include increased interest in using oral fluid as a specimen for drug detection in impaired driving cases.

    “Recent developments within the field of forensic toxicology include increased interest in the use of oral fluid as a specimen for drug detection in impaired driving cases (8).”
  • Drug deposition into oral fluid occurs via passive diffusion of un-ionized free drug from blood through salivary glands and ion trapping of basic drugs in the oral cavity.

    “Drug deposition into oral fluid is via passive diffusion of un-ionized free drug from the blood through the salivary glands and ion trapping of basic drugs in the oral cavity.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bosker, W. M., & Huestis, M. A.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Huestis, Marilyn A
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2009-11-01
Volume
55
Issue
11
Pages
1910-1931
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2062866182
Cited by
378
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 36
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (ZIADA000412)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
oral fluid testing, drugs of abuse, drug testing, workplace drug testing, drug-impaired driving, cannabinoids, opioids, amphetamine, cocaine, benzodiazepines, analyte stability, immunoassay, chromatographic methods, drug monitoring
MeSH terms
Amphetamines, Analgesics, Opioid, Benzodiazepines, Cannabinoids, Cocaine, Humans, Saliva, Substance Abuse Detection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review