ReviewElectrophoresis2022
Dynamic computer simulations of electrophoresis: 2010-2020.
Review in Electrophoresis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Analysis of drug interactions with serum proteins and related binding agents by affinity capillary electrophoresis: A review.Electrophoresis · 2022Review
- The effect of pH adjusted electrolytes on capillary isoelectric focusing assessed by high-resolution dynamic computer simulation.Electrophoresis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The transport of components in liquid media under the influence of an applied electric field can be described with the continuity equation. It represents a nonlinear conservation law that is based upon the balance laws of continuous transport processes and can be solved in time and space numerically. This procedure is referred to as dynamic computer simulation. Since its inception four decades ago, the state of dynamic computer simulation software and its use has progressed significantly. Dynamic models are the most versatile tools to explore the fundamentals of electrokinetic separations and provide insights into the behavior of buffer systems and sample components of all electrophoretic separation methods, including moving boundary electrophoresis, CZE, CGE, ITP, IEF, EKC, ACE, and CEC. This article is a continuation of previous reviews (Electrophoresis 2009, 30, S16-S26 and Electrophoresis 2010, 31, 726-754) and summarizes the progress and achievements made during the 2010 to 2020 time period in which some of the existing dynamic simulators were extended and new simulation packages were developed. This review presents the basics and extensions of the three most used one-dimensional simulators, provides a survey of new one-dimensional simulators, outlines an overview of multi-dimensional models, and mentions models that were briefly reported in the literature. A comprehensive discussion of simulation applications and achievements of the 2010 to 2020 time period is also included.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.