Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28161751›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2017

Miltefosine: a novel internal standard approach to lysophospholipid quantitation using LC-MS/MS.

A Ruth Godfrey, Lewis Jones, Mairead Davies, Rachel Townsend

Open access · hybridAbstract readEquivalence TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Ruth GodfreyInstitute of Mass Spectrometry, School of Medicine, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK. a.r.godfrey@swansea.ac.uk.
Lewis JonesInstitute of Mass Spectrometry, School of Medicine, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Mairead DaviesInstitute of Mass Spectrometry, School of Medicine, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Rachel TownsendInstitute of Mass Spectrometry, School of Medicine, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Swansea University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding and determining levels of lysophospholipids (LPLs) is of increasing interest to the bioanalytical community as they may be targeted for preparative removal as a matrix interference or as a lead substance as a biomarker of disease. Studies monitoring levels of LPLs have used a range of approaches for quantitation whereby those using an internal standard have used either deuterated analogues of the target LPL or alternative LPLs containing an odd number of carbon atoms within its chain, which can be expensive and difficult to distinguish with other LPLs, respectively. A structural analogue, miltefosine, was investigated as a novel internal standard to quantify a selection of lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs) of clinical interest. A reverse phase C18 LC-MS/MS method was characterised for 16:0-LPC, 18:1-LPC and 18:0-LPC, showing good sensitivity and linearity for all compounds, with limit of detection (LOD) values <1 μg/mL and R

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBlood Chemical AnalysisChromatography, LiquidHumansInternationalityLysophospholipidsMass SpectrometryPhosphorylcholineReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityLysophospholipidsmiltefosinePhosphorylcholineLiquid chromatography-mass spectrometryLysophosphatidylcholine quantitationMiltefosinePlasmaSolid phase extraction

Identifiers

PMID28161751
PMCPMC5366175
OpenAlexW2584762668

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.