Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32503183›Full record

ReviewMetabolites2020

Recommendations and Best Practices for Standardizing the Pre-Analytical Processing of Blood and Urine Samples in Metabolomics.

Raúl González-Domínguez, Álvaro González-Domínguez, Ana Sayago, Ángeles Fernández-Recamales

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Metabolites, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Raúl González-DomínguezAgriFood Laboratory, Faculty of Experimental Sciences, University of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7640-8833
Álvaro González-DomínguezDepartment of Pediatrics, Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, 11009 Cádiz, Spain.
Ana SayagoAgriFood Laboratory, Faculty of Experimental Sciences, University of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5781-2232
Ángeles Fernández-RecamalesAgriFood Laboratory, Faculty of Experimental Sciences, University of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6823-8072

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabolomics can be significantly influenced by a range of pre-analytical factors, such as sample collection, pre-processing, aliquoting, transport, storage and thawing. This therefore shows the crucial need for standardizing the pre-analytical phase with the aim of minimizing the inter-sample variability driven by these technical issues, as well as for maintaining the metabolic integrity of biological samples to ensure that metabolomic profiles are a direct expression of the in vivo biochemical status. This review article provides an updated literature revision of the most important factors related to sample handling and pre-processing that may affect metabolomics results, particularly focusing on the most commonly investigated biofluids in metabolomics, namely blood plasma/serum and urine. Finally, we also provide some general recommendations and best practices aimed to standardize and accurately report all these pre-analytical aspects in metabolomics research.

Indexed as

bloodcollectionmetabolomicspre-analyticsprocessingstorageurine

Identifiers

PMID32503183
PMCPMC7344701

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.