ArticlePharmaceutics2024
A Sensitive Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Method for Measuring Fosfomycin Concentrations in Human Prostatic Tissue.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop and validate a fast and sensitive bioanalytical method for the accurate quantification of fosfomycin concentrations in human prostatic tissue. The sample preparation method only required milligrams of tissue sample. Each sample was mixed with two times its weight of water and homogenized. A methanol solution that was three times the volume of the internal standard (fosfomycin-13C3) was added, followed by vortex mixing and centrifugation. After its extraction from the homogenized prostatic tissue, fosfomycin was quantified by means of a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) triple quadrupole system operating in negative electrospray ionization and multiple reaction monitoring detection mode. The analytical procedure was successfully validated in terms of specificity, sensitivity, linearity, precision, accuracy, matrix effect, extraction recovery, limit of quantification, and stability, according to EMA guidelines. The validation results, relative to three QC levels, were 9.9% for both the within-day and inter-day accuracy (BIAS%); 9.8% for within-day precision; and 9.9 for between-day precision. A marked matrix effect was observed in the measurements but was corrected by normalization with the internal standard. The average total recovery was high (approximatively 97% at the three control levels). The dynamic range of the method was 0.1-20 μg/g (R
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.