ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of LC-MS
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of a UPLC-MS/MS Method for the Quantification of Amantadine in Rat Plasma: Application to a Pharmacokinetic Study Under High-Altitude Hypoxia and Mechanistic Insights.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Multiplexed Health Surveillance Panel Using Ultra High-Throughput PRM-MS in an Inflammatory Bowel Disease Cohort.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A simple sample preprocessing method was developed for the quantitative determination of amantadine (AMT) in human plasma by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry cubed (LC-MS3). The LC-MS3 system comprised a Shimadzu Exion LC-20AD HPLC pump coupled with a QTRAP 5500 mass spectrometer. First, the plasma samples were pretreated using acetonitrile as the extracting solution to precipitate protein. Next, amantadine and amantadine-d15 (AMT-d15) were separated on an Agilent Poroshell 120 SB-C18 column (4.6 mm × 50 mm, 2.7 μm) using isocratic elution with solvent A (70% 0.1% formic acid) and solvent B (30% acetonitrile) at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min. The total run time for each sample was 3 min. The system used triple-stage fragmentation transitions at m/z 152.2→135.3→107.4 for AMT quantification in the positive ion mode and m/z 167.0→150.3→118.1 for AMT-d15 quantification. The LC-MS3 assay was linear (r > 0.995) with a concentration range of 50−1500 ng/mL. The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) was 50 ng/mL, and the intra-day and inter-day accuracies and precisions were less than 8.0% at all concentrations. In addition, the recoveries and matrix effect for AMT in human plasma were within acceptable limits. In terms of stability, AMT had no significant degradation under all conditions. All the results met the requirements of the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for biological method validation. The novelty of the MS3 assay was that it presented a methodology with higher selectivity and sensitivity. This method was successfully applied to 44 human plasma samples, and the obtained quantitative results were compared with another liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring (LC-MRM) method. The Passing-Bablok regression coefficients and Bland-Altman plot revealed no difference between the LC-MS3 and LC-MRM methods, implying that the developed LC-MS3 method is a reliable and accurate assay for AMT determination in human plasma. These results are also a proof of concept for determining chemicals in biological samples by the LC-MS3 strategy.
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.