Analytical Considerations When Developing an LC-MS/MS Method for More than 30 Analytes
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine, ISSN: 2475-7241, Vol: 2, Issue: 4, Page: 543-554
2018
- 4Citations
- 9Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- CrossRef3
- Captures9
- Readers9
Article Description
Background: While validation of analytical (LC-MS/MS) methods has been documented in any number of articles and reference texts, the optimal design and subsequent validation of a method for over 30 analytes presents special challenges. Conventional approaches to calibration curves, controls, and run time are not tenable in such methods. This report details the practical aspects of designing and implementing such a method in accordance with College of American Pathologists validation criteria. Methods: Conventional criteria were followed in the design and validation of a method for 34 analytes and 15 internal standards by LC-MS/MS. These criteria are laid out in a standard operating procedure, which is followed without exception and is consistent with College of American Pathologists criteria. Results: The method presented herein provides quality results and accurate medication monitoring. The method was optimized to negate interferences (both from within the method and from potential concomitant compounds), increase throughput, and provide reproducible quality quantification over relevant analyte concentrations ranges. Conclusions: The method was designed primarily with quality and accurate medication monitoring in mind. The method achieves these goals by use of novel approaches to calibration curves and controls that both improve performance and minimize risk (financial and operational). As automation and LC-MS/MS equipment continue to improve, it is expected that more methods like this one will be developed.
Bibliographic Details
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know