ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2021
Development and evaluation of a synthetic opioid targeted gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Method for the Determination of Fentanyl and Butyryl Fentanyl in Oral Fluid.Analytical science advances · 2025Article
- High-throughput screening of fentanyl analogs.Talanta · 2025Article
- Rapid GC-MS method for screening seized drugs in forensic investigations: optimization and validation.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Article
- On the challenge of unambiguous identification of fentanyl analogs: Exploring measurement diversity using standard reference mass spectral libraries.Journal of forensic sciences · 2023Article
- Interpol Review of Drug Analysis 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Simultaneous Quantification of Opioids in Blood and Urine by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer with Modified Dispersive Solid-Phase Extraction Technique.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As seized drug casework becomes increasingly complex due to the continued prevalence of emerging drugs, laboratories are often looking for new analytical approaches including developing methods for the analysis of specific compounds classes. Recent efforts have focused on the development of targeted gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) confirmation methods to compliment the information-rich screening results produced by techniques like direct analysis in real time mass spectrometry (DART-MS). In this work, a method for the confirmation of synthetic opioids and related compounds was developed and evaluated. An 11-component test solution was used to develop a method that focused on minimizing overlapping retention time acceptance windows and understanding the influence of instrument parameters on reproducibility and sensitivity. Investigated settings included column type, flow rate, temperature program, inlet temperature, source temperature, and tune type. Using a DB-200 column, a 35-min temperature ramped method was created. It was evaluated against a suite of 222 synthetic opioids and related compounds, and successfully differentiated all but four compound pairs based on nonoverlapping retention time acceptance windows or objectively different mass spectra. Compared to a general confirmatory method used in casework, the targeted method was up to 25 times more sensitive and provided at least a two-fold increase in retention time differences. Analysis of extracts from actual case samples successfully demonstrated utility of the method and showed no instance of carryover, although the high polarity column required wider retention time windows than other columns.
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.