ArticleDrug testing and analysis2019
Does oral fluid contribute to exhaled breath samples collected by means of an electret membrane?
Article in Drug testing and analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of biomarkers specific to five different nicotine product user groups: Study protocol of a controlled clinical trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Does oral fluid contribute to exhaled breath samples collected by means of an electret membrane?Drug testing and analysis · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To date, blood (and serum) as well as urine samples are the most commonly collected specimens for routine doping controls, which allow for the analytical coverage of an extensive set of target analytes relevant to sports drug testing programs. In the course of studies to identify potential alternative matrices to complement current testing approaches, exhaled breath (EB) has been found to offer advantageous properties especially with regard to the sample collection procedure, which is less invasive, less intrusive, and less time-consuming when compared to conventional blood and urine testing. A yet unaddressed question has been the potential contribution of oral fluid (OF) to EB samples. The current investigation focused on characterizing an electret membrane-based EB collection device concerning a potential introduction of OF during the sampling procedure. For that purpose, EB and OF samples collected under varying conditions from a total of 14 healthy volunteers were tested for the presence of abundant salivary proteins using bottom-up proteomics approaches such as SDS-PAGE followed by tryptic digestion and chromatographic-mass spectrometric analysis. The trapping baffles integrated into the mouthpiece of the EB collection device were found to effectively retain OF introduced into the unit during sample collection as no saliva breakthrough was detectable using the established analytical approach targeting predominantly the highly abundant salivary α-amylase. Since α-amylase was found unaffected by storage, smoking, food intake, and exercise, it appears to be a useful marker to reveal possible OF contaminations of EB collection devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.