This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Seidel and colleagues¹ found excessive variability between laboratories in the results of hair analysis. This study should not be represented as a final, rigorous, and decisive condemnation of the entire commercial hair analysis industry because other studies have established the validity of hair analysis evaluation.^2-6

The study by Seidel et al simply shows that there is some variation among the laboratories' results, as would be expected. The study's design was critically flawed in several areas. The authors compared test results and reference ranges for laboratories using different methods. They also failed to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate laboratories, as they did not use a specific standard or reference laboratory.

The authors' inclusion of a noncertified, unregulated, and illegally operating laboratory that represents less than 3% of the total hair analysis activity in the United States introduced bias and error into the analysis and conclusions. This unregulated . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?