ArticleDrug testing and analysis2025
Plasma drug screening using paper spray mass spectrometry with integrated solid phase extraction.
Article in Drug testing and analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Paper spray mass spectrometry for rapid toxicology targeted screening of emergency department samples: a research study.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2026Article
- Exploring Metal-Organic Framework-Coated Blades for Direct and High-Throughput Screening Analysis of Complex Biological Matrices.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Analysis of Drugs in Whole Blood by Paper Spray Mass Spectrometry with Integrated Solid-Phase Extraction.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Advancements in Ambient Ionisation Mass Spectrometry in 2024: An Annual Review.Analytical science advances · 2025Review
- Plasma drug screening using paper spray mass spectrometry with integrated solid phase extraction.Drug testing and analysis · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Drug overdoses have risen dramatically in recent years. We developed a simple nontargeted method using a disposable paper spray cartridge with an integrated solid phase extraction column. This method was used to screen for ~160 fentanyl analogs, synthetic cannabinoids, other synthetic drugs, and traditional drugs of abuse in over 300 authentic overdose samples collected at emergency departments in Indianapolis. A solid phase extraction step was implemented on the paper spray cartridge to enable subnanograms per milliliter synthetic drugs screening in plasma. Analysis was performed on a quadrupole orbitrap mass spectrometer using the sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment ion spectra approach in which tandem mass spectrometry was performed using 7 m/z isolation windows in the quadrupole. Calibration curves with isotopically labeled internal standards were constructed for 35 of the most frequently encountered synthetic and traditional illicit drugs by US toxicology labs. Additional qualitative-only drugs in a suspect screening list were also included. Limits of detection in plasma for synthetic cannabinoids ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 and 0.1 to 0.3 ng/mL for fentanyl and its analogs and between 1 and 5 ng/mL for most other drugs. Relative matrix effects were evaluated by determining the variation of the calibration slope in 10 different lots of biofluid and found to be between 3% and 20%. The method was validated on authentic overdose samples collected from two emergency departments in Indianapolis, Indiana, from suspected or known overdoses. Commonly detected synthetic drugs included fentanyl related substances, designer benzodiazepines such as flubromazolam, and the synthetic cannabinoid 5F-PB-22.
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.