Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34123215›Full record

ReviewChemical science2020

Identifying reactive intermediates by mass spectrometry.

Jaya Mehara, Jana Roithová

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Realising the ambivalent nature of HDalton transactions (Cambridge, England : 2003) · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Integrating the analysis of human biopsies using post-translational modifications proteomics.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024
    Review
  13. Properties of Metal Hydrides of the Iron Triad.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A Dynamic Proton Bond: MHThe journal of physical chemistry letters · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Spectroscopic Characterization of a Reactive [CuAngewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2021
    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

2 authors.

Jaya MeharaInstitute for Molecules and Materials, Radboud University Heyendaalseweg 135 6525 AJ Nijmegen The Netherlands jana.roithova@ru.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1959-3478
Jana RoithováInstitute for Molecules and Materials, Radboud University Heyendaalseweg 135 6525 AJ Nijmegen The Netherlands jana.roithova@ru.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5144-0688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Development of new reactions requires finding and understanding of novel reaction pathways. In challenging reactions such as C-H activations, these pathways often involve highly reactive intermediates which are the key to our understanding, but difficult to study. Mass spectrometry has a unique sensitivity for detecting low abundant charged species; therefore it is increasingly used for detection of such intermediates in metal catalysed- and organometallic reactions. This perspective shows recent developments in the field of mass spectrometric research of reaction mechanisms with a special focus on going beyond mass-detection. Chapters discuss the advantages of collision-induced dissociation, ion mobility and ion spectroscopy for characterization of structures of the detected intermediates. In addition, we discuss the relationship between the condensed phase chemistry and mass spectrometric detection of species from solution.

Identifiers

PMID34123215
PMCPMC8162775

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.