Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27718257›Full record

ReviewElectrophoresis2017

CE-MS for metabolomics: Developments and applications in the period 2014-2016.

Rawi Ramautar, Govert W Somsen, Gerhardus J de Jong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Electrophoresis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mass Spectrometry-based Metabolomics in Translational Research.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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.

Rawi RamautarDivision of Analytical Biosciences, LACDR, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Govert W SomsenDivision of BioAnalytical Chemistry, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerhardus J de JongBiomolecular Analysis, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CE-MS can be considered a useful analytical technique for the global profiling of (highly) polar and charged metabolites in various samples. Over the past few years, significant advancements have been made in CE-MS approaches for metabolomics studies. In this paper, which is a follow-up of a previous review paper covering the years 2012-2014 (Electrophoresis 2015, 36, 212-224), recent CE-MS strategies developed for metabolomics covering the literature from July 2014 to June 2016 are outlined. Attention will be paid to new CE-MS approaches for the profiling of anionic metabolites and the potential of SPE coupled to CE-MS is also demonstrated. Representative examples illustrate the applicability of CE-MS in the fields of biomedical, clinical, microbial, plant, and food metabolomics. A complete overview of recent CE-MS-based metabolomics studies is given in a table, which provides information on sample type and pretreatment, capillary coatings, and MS detection mode. Finally, general conclusions and perspectives are given.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersElectrophoresis, CapillaryFood AnalysisHumansIsotachophoresisMass SpectrometryMetabolomicsNucleotidesOrganic ChemicalsPlantsSugar PhosphatesSurface PropertiesBiomarkersNucleotidesOrganic ChemicalsSugar PhosphatesBiomedical and clinicalFoodMetabolomicsMicrobial and plantTechnological developments

Identifiers

PMID27718257
PMCPMC5248609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.