2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmsacl.2023.02.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the performance of the Roche FEN2 fentanyl immunoassay and its clinical implementation: The role of LDT-based mass spectrometry testing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 20 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Traditional gas and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS and LC-MS) require expensive instrumentation, relatively large sample volume and extensive sample pretreatment, resulting in the reduction in the overall assay throughput [10][11][12]. On the other hand, homogenous immunoassays [13] or lateral flow assays (LFA) [14] can easily detect fentanyl and its analogs from a few drops of human samples, have medium to high throughput, and are relatively inexpensive [15]. However, there is still a gap in limit of detection (LOD) between immunoassays and the gold-standard mass spectrometry methods, which could detect sub-nanogram to picogram per mL levels of fentanyl analogs from urine samples [10].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditional gas and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS and LC-MS) require expensive instrumentation, relatively large sample volume and extensive sample pretreatment, resulting in the reduction in the overall assay throughput [10][11][12]. On the other hand, homogenous immunoassays [13] or lateral flow assays (LFA) [14] can easily detect fentanyl and its analogs from a few drops of human samples, have medium to high throughput, and are relatively inexpensive [15]. However, there is still a gap in limit of detection (LOD) between immunoassays and the gold-standard mass spectrometry methods, which could detect sub-nanogram to picogram per mL levels of fentanyl analogs from urine samples [10].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%