Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28757996›Full record

ArticleChemical science2016

Going beyond electrospray: mass spectrometric studies of chemical reactions in and on liquids.

Andrew J Ingram, Cornelia L Boeser, Richard N Zare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mild and efficient coupling reactions enabled byCatalysis science & technology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Structure, Anion, and Solvent Effects on Cation Response in ESI-MS.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Coaxial Electrospray Ionization for the Study of Rapid In-source Chemistry.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2018
    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.

Andrew J IngramDepartment of Chemistry , Stanford University , Stanford , CA 94305 , USA . Email: zare@stanford.edu.
Cornelia L BoeserThermo Fisher Scientific , San José , CA 95134 , USA.
Richard N ZareDepartment of Chemistry , Stanford University , Stanford , CA 94305 , USA . Email: zare@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been a burst in the number and variety of available ionization techniques to use mass spectrometry to monitor chemical reactions in and on liquids. Chemists have gained the capability to access chemistry at unprecedented timescales, and monitor reactions and detect intermediates under almost any set of conditions. Herein, recently developed ionization techniques that facilitate mechanistic studies of chemical processes are reviewed. This is followed by a discussion of our perspective on the judicious application of these and similar techniques in order to study reaction mechanisms.

Identifiers

PMID28757996
PMCPMC5508663

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.