Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39371091›Full record

ArticleForensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024

Validation of a Rapid GC-MS Method for Forensic Seized Drug Screening Applications.

Briana A Capistran, Edward Sisco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Development of OptimizedACS omega · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Briana A CapistranNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6937-0403
Edward SiscoNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0252-1910

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the lack of standardized validation protocols across the forensic chemistry community, validation of instrumentation can be a challenging and time-consuming task. However, this process is crucial to understanding the associated capabilities and limitations, especially for nascent technologies. Rapid GC-MS is one such emerging analytical technique being increasingly implemented in forensic laboratories due to its fast and informative screening capabilities. However, a full validation for forensic samples has yet to be published since its debut. This work presents the results of a comprehensive validation of a rapid GC-MS system for seized drug screening through the assessment of nine components: selectivity, matrix effects, precision, accuracy, range, carryover/contamination, robustness, ruggedness, and stability. Single- and/or multi-compound test solutions of commonly encountered seized drug compounds were used to assess method and system performance. Results met the designated acceptance criteria for a majority of components. For example, retention time and mass spectral search score % RSDs were ≤ 10 % for precision and robustness studies. Limitations were identified for components that did not meet the acceptance criteria (

Indexed as

GC-MSScreeningSeized drugsValidation

Identifiers

PMID39371091
PMCPMC11450638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.