ArticleScientific reports2026
Spectrofluorometric and spectrophotometric assay of anticancer drug ensartinib using ion-pair complex formation reaction with eosin Y.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two simple, sensitive, and eco-friendly spectroscopic methods were developed for the determination of ensartinib through ion-pair complexation with eosin Y. Method A represents the first reported spectrofluorometric assay for the studied drug and it is based on fluorescence quenching of eosin Y at pH 3.3, showing linearity over 100-1000 ng mL⁻¹ with LOD and LOQ values of 21.2 and 64.1 ng mL⁻¹, respectively. Method B is a spectrophotometric method based on measuring the absorbance of the formed ion-pair complex at 550 nm, obeying Beer's law over 1.0-10.0 µg mL⁻¹, with LOD and LOQ values of 132 and 400 ng mL⁻¹, respectively. Both methods were validated according to ICH guidelines and exhibited excellent accuracy (98.51-101.68%) and precision (RSD < 2%). The proposed procedures were successfully applied to capsules, providing mean recoveries of 99.29 ± 1.11% and 100.39 ± 0.98% for Methods A and B, respectively. Statistical comparison with a reported chromatographic method showed no significant difference at the 95% confidence level. The environmental impact of the developed methods was assessed using AGREE and GAPI tools, confirming their compliance with green analytical chemistry principles.
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.