Most Roadside THC Saliva Tests Vary Wildly in Accuracy

Of four oral fluid THC testing devices used in nearly 9,000 roadside tests, only one consistently detected THC with high accuracy, while two had sensitivity below 13%.

Scherer, Juliana Nichterwitz et al.·Drug testing and analysis·2024·Moderate EvidenceCross-Sectional
RTHC-05687Cross SectionalModerate Evidence2024RETHINKTHC RESEARCH DATABASErethinkthc.com/research

Quick Facts

Study Type
Cross-Sectional
Evidence
Moderate Evidence
Sample
Not reported

What This Study Found

The Drager DrugTest had 96.8% sensitivity and 97.1% specificity for detecting THC at a 5 ng/mL threshold. In contrast, the AquilaScan and Druglizer devices had sensitivity below 13%, meaning they missed the vast majority of positive samples.

Key Numbers

Drager DrugTest: 96.8% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, 97.0% efficiency. WipeAlyser Reader: 91.4% sensitivity, 97.2% specificity. AquilaScan and Druglizer: less than 13% sensitivity. Of 8,945 tests, 530 (5.9%) screened positive for THC.

How They Did This

Researchers conducted 8,945 oral fluid THC screening tests at the roadside using four different devices. Samples that screened positive (530 total, 5.9%) were confirmed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry at multiple cutoff concentrations.

Why This Research Matters

As cannabis-impaired driving enforcement grows, police departments are adopting oral fluid testing devices. This study reveals that device choice matters enormously, with some devices essentially useless for detecting THC.

The Bigger Picture

Reliable roadside testing is essential for fair enforcement of impaired driving laws. When devices miss most positive cases, impaired drivers go undetected. When they produce false positives, sober drivers face unwarranted consequences.

What This Study Doesn't Tell Us

Field conditions (temperature, humidity) may have affected device performance. The study was conducted in one country (Brazil), and device performance may differ in other settings. Only THC was evaluated.

Questions This Raises

  • ?Why do some devices perform so poorly in real-world conditions despite presumably passing laboratory testing?
  • ?Should there be minimum performance standards for roadside oral fluid testing devices?

Trust & Context

Key Stat:
Sensitivity ranged from less than 13% to 96.8% across devices
Evidence Grade:
Large real-world sample with gold-standard LC-MS/MS confirmation, though conducted at a single location.
Study Age:
2024 study
Original Title:
Reliability of roadside oral fluid testing devices for ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC) detection.
Published In:
Drug testing and analysis, 16(12), 1528-1536 (2024)
Database ID:
RTHC-05687

Evidence Hierarchy

Meta-Analysis / Systematic Review
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cohort / Case-Control
Cross-Sectional / ObservationalSnapshot without intervening
This study
Case Report / Animal Study

A snapshot of a population at one point in time.

What do these levels mean? →

Frequently Asked Questions

Which roadside THC saliva test performed best?

The Drager DrugTest had the best performance with 96.8% sensitivity and 97.1% specificity at a 5 ng/mL confirmation cutoff.

How reliable are roadside THC tests in general?

It depends entirely on the device. In this study, two devices missed nearly every positive sample (less than 13% sensitivity), while two others performed well (above 91% sensitivity).

Read More on RethinkTHC

Cite This Study

RTHC-05687·https://rethinkthc.com/research/RTHC-05687

APA

Scherer, Juliana Nichterwitz; Vasconcelos, Mailton; Dalanhol, Carolina Silveira; Govoni, Bruna; Dos Santos, Bruno Pereira; Borges, Gabriela Ramos; de Gouveia, Giovanna Cristiano; Viola, Patrícia Pacheco; Carlson, Renato Luiz Romera; Martins, Aline Franco; Costa, Jose Luiz; Huestis, Marilyn A; Pechansky, Flavio. (2024). Reliability of roadside oral fluid testing devices for ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC) detection.. Drug testing and analysis, 16(12), 1528-1536. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3669

MLA

Scherer, Juliana Nichterwitz, et al. "Reliability of roadside oral fluid testing devices for ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC) detection.." Drug testing and analysis, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3669

RethinkTHC

RethinkTHC Research Database. "Reliability of roadside oral fluid testing devices for ∆9-te..." RTHC-05687. Retrieved from https://rethinkthc.com/research/scherer-2024-reliability-of-roadside-oral

Access the Original Study

Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkTHC research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.