ArticleForensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024
Validation of a Rapid GC-MS Method for Forensic Seized Drug Screening Applications.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A feasibility study of chromatographic methods with mass spectrometry, flame ionization detector (FID), and micro electron capture detector (μECD) for laboratory adoption of organic gunshot residue analysis at trace levels.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Development of OptimizedACS omega · 2025Article
- Rapid GC-MS method for screening seized drugs in forensic investigations: optimization and validation.Frontiers in chemistry · 2025Article
- Validation of a Rapid GC-MS Method for Forensic Seized Drug Screening Applications.Forensic chemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.