Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39148470›Full record

ArticleDrug testing and analysis2025

Interlaboratory comparison of phosphatidylethanol in dried blood spots using different sampling devices.

Matthias Bantle, Frederike Stöth, Wolfgang Weinmann, Marc Luginbühl

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matthias BantleInstitute of Forensic Medicine, Forensic Toxicology and Chemistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9210-2802
Frederike StöthInstitute of Forensic Medicine, Forensic Toxicology and Chemistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9270-0535
Wolfgang WeinmannInstitute of Forensic Medicine, Forensic Toxicology and Chemistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8659-1304
Marc LuginbühlInstitute for Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital and University Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3111-0750

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) has become an important marker to assess drinking behaviour and monitor abstinence. Despite its increasing use, knowledge on robustness and standardization and comparability of methods and results are still limited. In 2022, the first international consensus for the use of PEth and its interpretation was published. To establish an experience-based foundation for further harmonization, three rounds of interlaboratory comparison using microsamples were conducted. Participating laboratories sent their sampling devices to the laboratory of Forensic Toxicology at the University of Bern, where for each round, four different authentic blood samples were applied to the devices and sent back. The PEth 16:0/18:1 target concentrations covered a range between 16 and 474 ng/mL (0.023 and 0.676 μmol/L, respectively) and included sample concentrations close to the decision limits of 20 and 200 ng/mL (0.025 and 0.28 μmol/L, respectively). Evaluation of the results based on guidelines by Horwitz and the Society of Toxicological and Forensic Chemistry (GTFCh) showed that 73% of all participating laboratories quantified and reported all samples (N = 4 for each round) within the acceptable limits. More than 90% quantified and reported at least one sample within the acceptable limits.

Indexed as

Dried Blood Spot TestingGlycerophospholipidsSubstance Abuse DetectionForensic ToxicologyHumansLaboratoriesLimit of DetectionReproducibility of ResultsGlycerophospholipidsphosphatidylethanolalcohol biomarkersinterlaboratory comparisonPEthphosphatidylethanol

Identifiers

PMID39148470
PMCPMC12151716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.