Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35243250›Full record

ReviewiScience2022

Understanding flow chemistry for the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Anand S Burange, Sameh M Osman, Rafael Luque

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Anand S BurangeDepartment of Chemistry, Wilson College, Chowpatty, Mumbai 400007, India.
Sameh M OsmanChemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Rafael LuqueDepartamento de Quimica Organica, Universidad de Cordoba, Edificio Marie Curie (C-3), Ctra Nnal IV-A, Km 396, E14014 Cordoba, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-step organic syntheses of various drugs, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and other pharmaceutically and agriculturally important compounds have already been reported using flow synthesis. Compared to batch, hazardous and reactive reagents can be handled safely in flow. This review discusses the pros and cons of flow chemistry in today's scenario and recent developments in flow devices. The review majorly emphasizes on the recent developments in the flow synthesis of pharmaceutically important products in last five years including flibanserin, imatinib, buclizine, cinnarizine, cyclizine, meclizine, ribociclib, celecoxib, SC-560 and mavacoxib, efavirenz, fluconazole, melitracen HCl, rasagiline, tamsulosin, valsartan, and hydroxychloroquine. Critical steps and new development in the flow synthesis of selected compounds are also discussed.

Indexed as

Chemical engineeringChemistryGreen chemistryOrganic chemistry

Identifiers

PMID35243250
PMCPMC8867129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.