ReviewBiomedical chromatography : BMC2026
A Critical Comparative Review of Analytical Techniques for Cloxacillin and Oxacillin Across Diverse Matrices.
Review in Biomedical chromatography : BMC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cloxacillin (CLX) and oxacillin (OXA), two isoxazolyl β-lactam antibiotics widely used against penicillinase-producing Staphylococcus aureus, have attracted increasing attention due to their environmental persistence, residue occurrence, and analytical complexity across diverse matrices. This review provides a critical and integrated comparison of analytical techniques for the determination of CLX and OXA in pharmaceutical, biological, food, and environmental samples, addressing key challenges, including β-lactam instability, low intrinsic detectability, strong protein binding, and matrix interferences. Chromatographic methods, particularly HPLC and LC-MS/MS, remain the most reliable approaches, offering high selectivity and stability-indicating capability, with LC-MS/MS achieving superior sensitivity at ng/mL levels suitable for trace analysis, albeit at higher cost and with greater operational demands. Electrochemical techniques, especially nanomaterial- and molecularly imprinted-based sensors, demonstrate promising sensitivity and rapid response, though limitations in reproducibility and standardization persist. In contrast, spectroscopic methods are economical and simple but restricted by low sensitivity and poor selectivity in complex matrices. Overall, no single technique is universally optimal, and analytical performance is strongly matrix-dependent. Future perspectives should prioritize the development of hybrid, standardized, and green analytical platforms that balance sensitivity, robustness, and cost-effectiveness, alongside harmonized validation strategies to enable reliable and sustainable monitoring of CLX and OXA in real-world applications.
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.