ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2022
Comparative study for analysis of carbohydrates in biological samples.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Introduction to Simple Saccharides and Oligosaccharides, and a Decadal Review of Their Analysis in Food by Ion Chromatography and Ion Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.Food science & nutrition · 2025Review
- From Complexity to Clarity: Expanding Metabolome Coverage With Innovative Analytical Strategies.Journal of separation science · 2025Review
- Exopolysaccharide composition and size inFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Analysis of carbohydrates and glycoconjugates by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry: An update for 2021-2022.Mass spectrometry reviewsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work presents a comparative study for the analysis of carbohydrates for four common chromatographic methods, each coupled to mass spectrometry. Supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC), hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC), reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RP-LC) and gas chromatography (GC) with detection by triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (QqQ-MS) are compared. It is shown that gas chromatography and reversed-phase liquid chromatography, each after derivatisation, are superior to the other two methods in terms of separation performance. Furthermore, comparing the different working modes of the mass spectrometer, it can be determined that a targeted analysis, i.e. moving from full scan to single ion monitoring (SIM) and multiple reaction monitoring (MRM), results in an improvement in the sensitivity as well as the repeatability of the method, which has deficiencies especially in the analysis using HILIC. Overall, RP-LC-MS in MRM after derivatisation with 1-phenyl-3-methyl-5-pyrazolone (PMP) proved to be the most suitable method in terms of separation performance, sensitivity and repeatability for the analysis of monosaccharides. Detection limits in the nanomolar range were achieved, which corresponds to a mass concentration in the low µg/L range. The applicability of this method to different biological samples was investigated with various herbal liquors, pectins and a human glycoprotein.
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.