| Title |
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring by Dried Blood Spot: Progress to Date and Future Directions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40262-014-0177-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abraham J. Wilhelm, Jeroen C. G. den Burger, Eleonora L. Swart |
| Abstract |
This article discusses dried blood spot (DBS) sampling in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The most important advantages of DBS sampling in TDM are the minimally invasive procedure of a finger prick (home sampling), the small volume (children), and the stability of the analyte. Many assays in DBS have been reported in the literature over the previous 5 years. These assays and their analytical techniques are reviewed here. Factors that may influence the accuracy and reproducibility of DBS methods are also discussed. Important issues are the correlation with plasma/serum concentrations and the influence of hematocrit on spot size and recovery. The different substrate materials are considered. DBS sampling can be a valid alternative to conventional venous sampling. However, patient correlation studies are indispensable to prove this. Promising developments are dried plasma spots using membrane and hematocrit correction using the potassium concentration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 298 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 296 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 55 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 15% |
| Researcher | 34 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 46 | 15% |
| Unknown | 70 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 61 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 31 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 11% |
| Unknown | 89 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,301,438
of 25,863,888 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#84
of 1,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,425
of 251,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,863,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,423 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.