ReviewToxics2024
Volumetric Absorptive Microsampling in Toxicology.
Review in Toxics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of a microsampling-compatible liquid-liquid extraction method for cannabinoid quantitation in 50 µL of whole blood using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2026Article
- Review
- Dried Matrix Spots for the Determination of Opiates and Opioids: Methodological Advances and Applications.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- How microsampling is impacting pharmacokinetic and toxicokinetic studies: volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS).Bioanalysis · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) is an emerging technique in clinical and forensic toxicology. It is recognized as a promising alternative to traditional sampling methods, offering an accurate and minimally invasive means of collecting small volumes of biological samples, such as blood, urine, and saliva. Unlike conventional methods, VAMS provides advantages in terms of sample stability, storage, and transportation, as it enables samples to be collected outside laboratory environments without requiring refrigeration. This review explores several VAMS methodologies, with a particular focus on its application for the quantification of drugs and other substances in clinical and forensic toxicology. It compares VAMS to other microsampling techniques, such as dried blood spots (DBSs), highlighting VAMS's superiority in addressing issues related to sample volume consistency and environmental impact. Despite its advantages, VAMS also presents certain limitations, including higher costs and difficulties in detecting underfilled samples. Overall, VAMS stands out as a microsampling technique with the potential to enhance patient compliance and operational efficiency, positioning itself as a viable tool for toxicological analysis in both clinical and forensic contexts.
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.