I can see that you have done your homework. The variance in cutoff levels is indeed confusing. Add to this the fact that most of the studies use different methods to determine elimination time and you are pretty much on your own in comparing results from study to study.
However, using the studies that display graphs you can make some reasonably valid estimates. As example see:
Hoiseth, 2008
Wojcik & Hawthorne, 2007
Helander, 2008
Rosano & Lin, 2008
Sarkola, 2003
Even then you must be attentive to detail and note baseline. Is it 0 (absolute level of detection) or based on a fixed cutoff, 110, 250, 500? Measure accordingly.
There are various estimates as to the proportion of samples testing positive from one cutoff to another, however these are in my opinion questionable:
Raising the cutoff from 100 to 250 will cut in half the number of positives.
Quest Diagnostics,
reported in Toxicology News, in an evaluation of 70,000 EtG screens, of those that were positive, 24.2% were detected between 100-250 ng/mL, 15.8% between 250-500 ng/mL, 12.6% between 500-1,000 ng/mL, and 47.7% greater than 1,000 ng/mL. These statistics translate into a 24.2% drop in the positive rate if the cutoff is raised from 100 to 250 ng/mL and a 40% decrease if it is raised from 100 to 500 ng/mL. Based on a review of positive samples retested by Quest Diagnostics, contained in Clinical & Forensic Toxicology News, 2006.
Subsequently
Redwood Toxicology, reported in
Toxichem Krimtech 2011;78(2):9 re-tested a large number of sample and found "Assuming the positivity rate to be 100% with an EtG cut off 100 ng/mL, a cutoff of 250 ng/mL detects 91.4% of the positives, 500 ng/mL cut off detects 78.1%, 1,000 ng/ml cutoff detects 63.8% and a cutoff of 2,000 ng/mL detects 51.1% of the positives in a given population.
Finally, in the elimination studies, you must be aware of how often the samples were collected. In most of the studies showing long-term detection, urine samples were collected once each 24 hours. That is an unacceptable time span. Could result in errors from 1-23 hours is elimination time.
In direct response to your query there is no standardized method for making the comparison you cite. It's all a matter of cumulative comparison. My method is conservative and I extrapolate from a 500 cutoff to 100 by reducing window of detection by 20%.