Cargando…

Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of three personal breathalyser devices available for sale to the public marketed to test safety to drive after drinking alcohol. DESIGN: Prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy study comparing two single-use breathalysers and one digital multiuse bre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ashdown, Helen F, Fleming, Susannah, Spencer, Elizabeth A, Thompson, Matthew J, Stevens, Richard J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4281544/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25526794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005811
_version_ 1782351012831428608
author Ashdown, Helen F
Fleming, Susannah
Spencer, Elizabeth A
Thompson, Matthew J
Stevens, Richard J
author_facet Ashdown, Helen F
Fleming, Susannah
Spencer, Elizabeth A
Thompson, Matthew J
Stevens, Richard J
author_sort Ashdown, Helen F
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of three personal breathalyser devices available for sale to the public marketed to test safety to drive after drinking alcohol. DESIGN: Prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy study comparing two single-use breathalysers and one digital multiuse breathalyser (index tests) to a police breathalyser (reference test). SETTING: Establishments licensed to serve alcohol in a UK city. PARTICIPANTS: Of 222 participants recruited, 208 were included in the main analysis. Participants were eligible if they were 18 years old or over, had consumed alcohol and were not intending to drive within the following 6 h. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of the breathalysers for the detection of being at or over the UK legal driving limit (35 µg/100 mL breath alcohol concentration). RESULTS: 18% of participants (38/208) were at or over the UK driving limit according to the police breathalyser. The digital multiuse breathalyser had a sensitivity of 89.5% (95% CI 75.9% to 95.8%) and a specificity of 64.1% (95% CI 56.6% to 71.0%). The single-use breathalysers had a sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI 75.4% to 99.1%) and 26.3% (95% CI 11.8% to 48.8%), and a specificity of 50.6% (95% CI 40.4% to 60.7%) and 97.5% (95% CI 91.4% to 99.3%), respectively. Self-reported alcohol consumption threshold of 5 UK units or fewer had a higher sensitivity than all personal breathalysers. CONCLUSIONS: One alcohol breathalyser had sensitivity of 26%, corresponding to false reassurance for approximately one person in four who is over the limit by the reference standard, at least on the evening of drinking alcohol. The other devices tested had 90% sensitivity or higher. All estimates were subject to uncertainty. There is no clearly defined minimum sensitivity for this safety-critical application. We conclude that current regulatory frameworks do not ensure high sensitivity for these devices marketed to consumers for a decision with potentially catastrophic consequences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4281544
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42815442015-01-12 Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public Ashdown, Helen F Fleming, Susannah Spencer, Elizabeth A Thompson, Matthew J Stevens, Richard J BMJ Open Diagnostics OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of three personal breathalyser devices available for sale to the public marketed to test safety to drive after drinking alcohol. DESIGN: Prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy study comparing two single-use breathalysers and one digital multiuse breathalyser (index tests) to a police breathalyser (reference test). SETTING: Establishments licensed to serve alcohol in a UK city. PARTICIPANTS: Of 222 participants recruited, 208 were included in the main analysis. Participants were eligible if they were 18 years old or over, had consumed alcohol and were not intending to drive within the following 6 h. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of the breathalysers for the detection of being at or over the UK legal driving limit (35 µg/100 mL breath alcohol concentration). RESULTS: 18% of participants (38/208) were at or over the UK driving limit according to the police breathalyser. The digital multiuse breathalyser had a sensitivity of 89.5% (95% CI 75.9% to 95.8%) and a specificity of 64.1% (95% CI 56.6% to 71.0%). The single-use breathalysers had a sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI 75.4% to 99.1%) and 26.3% (95% CI 11.8% to 48.8%), and a specificity of 50.6% (95% CI 40.4% to 60.7%) and 97.5% (95% CI 91.4% to 99.3%), respectively. Self-reported alcohol consumption threshold of 5 UK units or fewer had a higher sensitivity than all personal breathalysers. CONCLUSIONS: One alcohol breathalyser had sensitivity of 26%, corresponding to false reassurance for approximately one person in four who is over the limit by the reference standard, at least on the evening of drinking alcohol. The other devices tested had 90% sensitivity or higher. All estimates were subject to uncertainty. There is no clearly defined minimum sensitivity for this safety-critical application. We conclude that current regulatory frameworks do not ensure high sensitivity for these devices marketed to consumers for a decision with potentially catastrophic consequences. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-12-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4281544/ /pubmed/25526794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005811 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Diagnostics
Ashdown, Helen F
Fleming, Susannah
Spencer, Elizabeth A
Thompson, Matthew J
Stevens, Richard J
Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public
title Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public
title_full Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public
title_fullStr Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public
title_short Diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public
title_sort diagnostic accuracy study of three alcohol breathalysers marketed for sale to the public
topic Diagnostics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4281544/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25526794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005811
work_keys_str_mv AT ashdownhelenf diagnosticaccuracystudyofthreealcoholbreathalysersmarketedforsaletothepublic
AT flemingsusannah diagnosticaccuracystudyofthreealcoholbreathalysersmarketedforsaletothepublic
AT spencerelizabetha diagnosticaccuracystudyofthreealcoholbreathalysersmarketedforsaletothepublic
AT thompsonmatthewj diagnosticaccuracystudyofthreealcoholbreathalysersmarketedforsaletothepublic
AT stevensrichardj diagnosticaccuracystudyofthreealcoholbreathalysersmarketedforsaletothepublic