ArticleSaudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society2024
Developing, validating, and comparing an analytical method to simultaneously detect z-drugs in urine samples using the QuEChERS approach with both liquid chromatography and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.
Article in Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, 2024. 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.
- Eco-conscious and cost-effective electrochemical sensor for selective determination of eszopiclone in pure form, alkaline-stressed samples, and pharmaceutical tablets.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Greener and whiter analytical method development and validation for determining the presence of zolpidem tartrate infused in apple juice using RP-HPLCRSC advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detecting z-drugs, a sedative-hypnotic medication, is also misused for criminal activities. Therefore, the analysis of urine samples is crucial for clinical and forensic purposes. We conducted a study where we developed, validated, and compared an analytical method for simultaneously detecting z-drugs in urine samples. Our approach uses the QuEChERS method for sample preparation, combined with liquid chromatography (LC) and gas chromatography (GC) coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). We optimized the QuEChERS method to effectively extract z-drugs from urine samples while minimizing matrix effects and achieving high recovery rates. After extraction, we split the samples into two parts for analysis using LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS. We validated our methods, and the results showed good linearity over a broad concentration range (1-200 ng/mL) for each z-drug. The limits of detection and quantification were within clinically relevant ranges, ensuring sensitivity for detecting z-drugs in urine samples. We compared the two chromatographic techniques by analyzing a set of urine samples spiked with known concentrations of z-drugs using both LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS methods and then applied to the real samples. The results were statistically analyzed to assess any significant differences in accuracy and precision above 95 %, and both methods offered reliable and consistent results with the samples as well. In conclusion, our analytical method coupled with both LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS using the QuEChERS approach provides a comprehensive and robust solution for the simultaneous detection of z-drugs in urine samples. The choice between the two chromatographic techniques can be based on the specific z-drugs of interest and the required analytical performance. This method holds promise for applications in clinical toxicology, forensic analysis, and monitoring z-drug usage.
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.