Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19224008›Full record

ArticleThe Clinical biochemist. Reviews2009

Principles and applications of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in clinical biochemistry.

James J Pitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Clinical biochemist. Reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 151 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
151citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

151 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Pre-diagnostic plasma endogenous steroids and the risk of exfoliation glaucoma.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

91 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

James J PittVCGS Pathology, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Vic. 3052, Australia. james.pitt@ghsv.org.au

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) is now a routine technique with the development of electrospray ionisation (ESI) providing a simple and robust interface. It can be applied to a wide range of biological molecules and the use of tandem MS and stable isotope internal standards allows highly sensitive and accurate assays to be developed although some method optimisation is required to minimise ion suppression effects. Fast scanning speeds allow a high degree of multiplexing and many compounds can be measured in a single analytical run. With the development of more affordable and reliable instruments, LC-MS is starting to play an important role in several areas of clinical biochemistry and compete with conventional liquid chromatography and other techniques such as immunoassay.

Identifiers

PMID19224008
PMCPMC2643089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.