Guest guest Posted May 30, 2007 Report Share Posted May 30, 2007 There is a study just published this week that "compared two new methods for direct determination of 5-hydroxytryptophol glucuronide (GTOL) in urine, a biomarker for detection of recent alcohol consumption." What I found interesting was the wording in the conclusion: "The lower sensitivity of the urinary GTOL/5-HIAA ratio compared with EtG for recent drinking may be clinically useful, in cases where the EtG test provides an unwanted high sensitivity for intake of only small amounts of alcohol or unintentional ethanol exposure." One of the authors of this study is A. Helander who, along with Wurst, Skipper, et al., is a pioneer of EtG testing. Could it be that the above conclusion is a subtle way of admitting that EtG testing is too sensitive for clinical application in certain instances (say, like professional monitoring programs)? Or am I reading too much into it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.