ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacology2026
Volumetric Microsampling for Patient-Centric Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Clinical Pharmacology: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate drug concentration measurement is essential for precision pharmacotherapy, but conventional therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) requires venous sampling, increasing patient burden, and potentially limiting participation in TDM and model-informed precision dosing (MIPD). Volumetric microsampling enables self-collection of small, fixed volume capillary samples for centralized analysis and may reduce hematocrit-related volumetric bias associated with conventional dried blood spots. This scoping review, conducted according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, synthesized 67 patient-cohort studies published from 2014 through 2026. Studies spanned at least 18 countries and multiple clinical specialties. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was used in 61 studies (91%), and most reported validation using or referencing EMA, FDA, IATDMCT, or CLSI criteria. Recovery was minimally affected across evaluated hematocrit ranges for most analytes, and many analytes remained stable in dried samples, although stability varied by analyte and storage conditions. Where assessed, patient preference was high (80%-100%). However, interpretation against established plasma therapeutic ranges often required whole-blood-to-plasma or capillary-to-venous conversion, with inconsistent derivation and validation methods. Fixed conversion factors performed well for lacosamide and levetiracetam but were less reliable for lamotrigine at high concentrations. Several analyte-matrix combinations, including cefepime, vancomycin, meropenem, paclitaxel, abiraterone, and mitotane, did not consistently meet agreement criteria. Volumetric microsampling can support patient-centered drug monitoring when validated for the specific analyte, matrix, device, and clinical application. Future research should prioritize drug-specific optimization, multicenter validation, standardized conversion reporting, and integration with MIPD platforms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.