ArticleSe pu = Chinese journal of chromatography2024
[Development of an analytical system for dried blood spots for forensic toxicology: a case study of five common drugs and poisons].
Article in Se pu = Chinese journal of chromatography, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpol review of forensic toxicology, 2023-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- [Determination of 15 fentanyl analogs and amphetamine-type stimulants in hair by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry].Se pu = Chinese journal of chromatography · 2026Article
- [Innovation in experimental teaching practice based on miniature mass spectrometer： from mass spectrometry principles to applications].Se pu = Chinese journal of chromatography · 2026Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dried blood spot (DBS) technology is a simple and convenient method for collecting, transporting, and storing blood samples on filter paper, and has numerous applications in the clinical, research, and public health settings. This technique is gaining popularity in the field of forensic science because it facilitates the rapid analysis of prohibited drugs in blood samples and offers significant advantages in toxicology scenarios such as drinking-driving screening, drug abuse detection, and doping detection. However, the lack of a standardized system and the fact that its stability and reliability have not been thoroughly researched and demonstrated limit its application in judicial practice in China. DBS samples can be prepared, stored, and analyzed in various ways, all of which may significantly affect the results. In this study, we developed a method based on ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) that focuses on the preparation, pretreatment, analysis, and storage of DBS samples. A thorough investigation was conducted to examine the optimal preparation conditions, including the blood spot matrix, drying technique, and preprocessing parameters, such as the solvent and extraction method. Moreover, the analytical conditions, such as the mobile phase system and elution gradient, were established to facilitate the quantitative detection of methamphetamine, lidocaine, ketamine, fentanyl, and diazepam in both DBS and whole-blood samples. The impact of storage conditions, such as the temperature, humidity, and sealing, on the analytical results of the DBS and whole-blood samples was also examined. The results showed a strong linear relationship for lidocaine and fentanyl within the range of 0.5-100 ng/mL. Similarly, methamphetamine, ketamine, and diazepam exhibited good linearity within the range of 2-100 ng/mL. The coefficients of determination (
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.