ArticleMikrochimica acta2025
Comparative analysis of LC-MS/MS and electrochemical immunosensor for clarithromycin detection in plasma.
Article in Mikrochimica acta, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development and comparison of two distinct analytical approaches is presented for quantifying clarithromycin in human plasma: a method based on ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry and a novel electrochemical immunosensor. The use of both techniques is justified by their ability to meet distinct operational requirements, ranging from high-throughput centralized analysis to rapid, point-of-care monitoring, which is essential for therapeutic drug monitoring and pharmacokinetic studies. The developed chromatographic method, which combines protein precipitation with subsequent liquid-liquid extraction using tert-butyl methyl ether, demonstrated robust and reproducible performance. Demonstrating excellent linearity and precision within the validated concentration range (0.1 to 4.0 µg per milliliter), the method achieved a limit of detection as low as 0.03 µg ml
Indexed as
Identifiers
41145825What 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.