Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25465076›Full record

ReviewThe Analyst2015

Review on ion mobility spectrometry. Part 1: current instrumentation.

R Cumeras, E Figueras, C E Davis, J I Baumbach, I Gràcia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Analyst, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed
–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

108 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Multi-Mycotoxin Quantification in Soy Protein Powders, Soymilk, Soybeans (Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 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

5 authors.

R CumerasInstitut de Microelectrònica de Barcelona, IMB-CNM (CSIC), Esfera UAB, Campus UAB s/n, E-08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. eduard.figueras@imb-cnm.csic.es.
E Figueras
C E Davis
J I Baumbach
I Gràcia

Funding

UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000002 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BERGLUND, LARS F · 2012 to 2015
$12.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ion Mobility Spectrometry (IMS) is a widely used and 'well-known' technique of ion separation in the gaseous phase based on the differences in ion mobilities under an electric field. All IMS instruments operate with an electric field that provides space separation, but some IMS instruments also operate with a drift gas flow that provides also a temporal separation. In this review we will summarize the current IMS instrumentation. IMS techniques have received an increased interest as new instrumentation and have become available to be coupled with mass spectrometry (MS). For each of the eight types of IMS instruments reviewed it is mentioned whether they can be hyphenated with MS and whether they are commercially available. Finally, out of the described devices, the six most-consolidated ones are compared. The current review article is followed by a companion review article which details the IMS hyphenated techniques (mainly gas chromatography and mass spectrometry) and the factors that make the data from an IMS device change as a function of device parameters and sampling conditions. These reviews will provide the reader with an insightful view of the main characteristics and aspects of the IMS technique.

Indexed as

HumansIonsMass SpectrometryIons

Identifiers

PMID25465076
PMCPMC4331213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.