Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28779760›Full record

ReviewScience progress2017

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

Christopher J Rhodes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Science progress, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Does a monoclonal antibody targeting immune cells affect glutamatergic level in schizophrenia? A multimodal PET/MRS brain imaging study.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Trial
  2. MR spectroscopy in differentiating spinal atypical hemangioma from metastasis: preliminary results.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Autoimmune Hepatitis and Fibrosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

1 author.

Christopher J Rhodes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the original observation by Zeeman, that spectral lines can be affected by magnetic fields, 'magnetic spectroscopy' has evolved into the broad arsenal of techniques known as 'magnetic resonance'. This review focuses on nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), and muon spin resonance (μSR): methods which have provided unparalleled insight into the structures, reactivity and dynamics of molecules, and thereby contributed to a detailed understanding of important aspects of chemistry, and the materials, biomedical, and environmental sciences. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and functional magnetic resonance spectroscopy (fMRS) are also described. EPR is outlined as a principal method for investigating free radicals, along with biomedical applications, and mention is given to the more recent innovation of pulsed EPR techniques. In the final section of the article, the various methods known as μSR are collected under the heading 'muon spin resonance', in order to emphasise their complementarity with the more familiar NMR and EPR.

Indexed as

Electron Spin Resonance SpectroscopyFourier AnalysisFree RadicalsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyFree Radicals

Identifiers

PMID28779760
PMCPMC10365211

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.