Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Official International Association for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology Guideline: Development and Validation of Dried Blood Spot–Based Methods for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Open access
Capiau, Sara, Veenhof, Herman, Koster, Remco A., Bergqvist, Yngve, Boettcher, Michael, Halmingh, Otto, Keevil, Brian G., Koch, Birgit C.P., Linden, Rafael, Pistos, Constantinos, Stolk, Leo M., Touw, Daan J., Stove, Christophe P., Alffenaar, Jan-Willem C.·2019·Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

Abstract

Dried blood spot (DBS) analysis has been introduced more and more into clinical practice to facilitate Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM). To assure the quality of bioanalytical methods, the design, development and validation needs to fit the intended use. Current validation requirements, described in guidelines for traditional matrices (blood, plasma, serum), do not cover all necessary aspects of method development, analytical- and clinical validation of DBS assays for TDM. Therefore, this guideline provides parameters required for the validation of quantitative determination of small molecule drugs in DBS using chromatographic methods, and to provide advice on how these can be assessed. In addition, guidance is given on the application of validated methods in a routine context. First, considerations for the method development stage are described covering sample collection procedure, type of filter paper and punch size, sample volume, drying and storage, internal standard incorporation, type of blood used, sample preparation and prevalidation. Second, common parameters regarding analytical validation are described in context of DBS analysis with the addition of DBS-specific parameters, such as volume-, volcano- and hematocrit effects. Third, clinical validation studies are described, including number of clinical samples and patients, comparison of DBS with venous blood, statistical methods and interpretation, spot quality, sampling procedure, duplicates, outliers, automated analysis methods and quality control programs. Lastly, cross-validation is discussed, covering changes made to existing sampling- and analysis methods. This guideline of the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology on the development, validation and evaluation of DBS-based methods for the purpose of TDM aims to contribute to high-quality micro sampling methods used in clinical practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ftd.0000000000000643

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 321

Metadata

Authors
Capiau, S., Veenhof, H., Koster, R. A., Bergqvist, Y., Boettcher, M., Halmingh, O., Keevil, B. G., Koch, B. C. P., Linden, R., Pistos, C., Stolk, L. M., Touw, D. J., Stove, C. P., & Alffenaar, J.-W. C.
Venue
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
Published
2019-08
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
409-430
ISSN
0163-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2954012220
Cited by
321
References
1
FWCI
10.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Official International Association for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology Guideline: Development and Validation of Dried Blood Spot–Based Methods for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ftd.0000000000000643
The paper
Capiau, S., Veenhof, H., Koster, R. A., Bergqvist, Y., Boettcher, M., Halmingh, O., Keevil, B. G., Koch, B. C. P., Linden, R., Pistos, C., Stolk, L. M., Touw, D. J., Stove, C. P., & Alffenaar, J.-W. C. (2019). Official International Association for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology Guideline: Development and Validation of Dried Blood Spot–Based Methods for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring. https://doi.org/10.1097/ftd.0000000000000643

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.