Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27163040›Full record

ReviewACS central science2016

Enabling Technologies for the Future of Chemical Synthesis.

Daniel E Fitzpatrick, Claudio Battilocchio, Steven V Ley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS central science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Constitutionally Selective Dynamic Covalent Nanoparticle Assembly.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Advanced Real-Time Process Analytics for Multistep Synthesis in Continuous Flow*.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Daniel E FitzpatrickInnovative Technology Centre, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge , Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, U.K.
Claudio BattilocchioInnovative Technology Centre, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge , Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, U.K.
Steven V LeyInnovative Technology Centre, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge , Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, U.K.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technology is evolving at breakneck pace, changing the way we communicate, travel, find out information, and live our lives. Yet chemistry as a science has been slower to adapt to this rapidly shifting world. In this Outlook we use highlights from recent literature reports to describe how progresses in enabling technologies are altering this trend, permitting chemists to incorporate new advances into their work at all levels of the chemistry development cycle. We discuss the benefits and challenges that have arisen, impacts on academic-industry relationships, and future trends in the area of chemical synthesis.

Identifiers

PMID27163040
PMCPMC4827522

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.