2007
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-007-9291-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative Bioanalytical Methods Validation and Implementation: Best Practices for Chromatographic and Ligand Binding Assays

Abstract: The Third AAPS/FDA Bioanalytical Workshop, entitled "Quantitative Bioanalytical Methods Validation and Implementation: Best Practices for Chromatographic and Ligand Binding Assays" was held on May 1-3, 2006 in Arlington, VA. The format of this workshop consisted of presentations on bioanalytical topics, followed by discussion sessions where these topics could be debated, with the goal of reaching consensus, or identifying subjects where addition input or clarification was required. The discussion also addresse… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

13
482
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 683 publications
(498 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
13
482
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…4); the mean matrix factors ranged from 88 to 101% in human plasma (CVs, 7 -9%), and from 93 to 101% in rat plasma (CVs, 6.0 -7.0%). Precision and accuracy values were within acceptable limits ( [18,21], US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry.…”
Section: Validationmentioning
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…4); the mean matrix factors ranged from 88 to 101% in human plasma (CVs, 7 -9%), and from 93 to 101% in rat plasma (CVs, 6.0 -7.0%). Precision and accuracy values were within acceptable limits ( [18,21], US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry.…”
Section: Validationmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…The matrix effect (i.e., suppression or enhancement of ionization of analytes by the presence of matrix components) was assessed by calculating the matrix factor [18]. It was defined as a ratio of the analyte peak response in the presence of matrix ions to the analyte peak response in the absence of matrix ions.…”
Section: Matrix Effect and Selectivitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those acceptance limits could be, for example, the limits chosen for assessing the validity of the method, or two or three times the intermediate precision SD of the method. The acceptance limits shown in Figures 3A through D are settled by allowing a degradation of maximum Ϫ30%, i.e., a minimum recovery of 70% (dashed line) (14). The maximum storage times when using the Liaison method with either Dry tubes or EDTA ones depicted in Figures 3A and B are the shortest and are estimated at 9 and 2 mo, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Because deuterium-labeled analogs of compounds risk having a small amount of signal associated with the non-deuterium-labeled drug, we chose to minimize the concentrations of the internal standards. The standards used in this study had an isotopic purity of 90.95% D 8 Table I summarizes the data collected during the method validation experiments, which followed FDA guidance (35). Values were deemed acceptable based on % RSD and % error of ≤15% for all QC points except LOQ, where ≤20% was allowed (35).…”
Section: Methods Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The standards used in this study had an isotopic purity of 90.95% D 8 Table I summarizes the data collected during the method validation experiments, which followed FDA guidance (35). Values were deemed acceptable based on % RSD and % error of ≤15% for all QC points except LOQ, where ≤20% was allowed (35). All calibration curves contained at least 5 points in the range of 5-100 ng/mL in brain tissue homogenate, and achieved R 2 > 0.99 for methylone, mephedrone, and MDPV using deuterium-labeled analogs as internal standards.…”
Section: Methods Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%