Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36005622›Full record

ArticleMetabolites2022

Analysis of Different Methods of Extracting NSAIDs in Biological Fluid Samples for LC-MS/MS Assays: Scoping Review.

Viviane Silva Siqueira Sandrin, Gabriela Moraes Oliveira, Giovana Maria Weckwerth, Nelson Leonel Del Hierro Polanco, Flávio Augusto Cardoso Faria, Carlos Ferreira Santos, Adriana Maria Calvo

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolites, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Metabolites · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Viviane Silva Siqueira SandrinDepartment of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru 17012-901, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2634-8481
Gabriela Moraes OliveiraDepartment of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru 17012-901, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0990-7106
Giovana Maria WeckwerthDepartment of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru 17012-901, São Paulo, Brazil.
Nelson Leonel Del Hierro PolancoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru 17012-901, São Paulo, Brazil.
Flávio Augusto Cardoso FariaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru 17012-901, São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos Ferreira SantosDepartment of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru 17012-901, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0405-3500
Adriana Maria CalvoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru 17012-901, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2876-0955
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

São Paulo Research Foundation 2020/04730-7 and 2017/12725-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic investigation and analysis of different drug extraction methods, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in biological fluid samples, for Liquid Chromatography in Mass Spectrometry assays (LC-MS/MS). A search was carried out in the main databases between 1999 and 2021, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Data were obtained through PubMed, Lilacs, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using the Boolean operators AND and OR. Studies were pre-selected by title and abstract by two independent reviewers. The selected texts were read in full, and only those that were complete and compatible with the inclusion and exclusion criteria were eligible for this research. A total of 248 references were obtained in the databases. After removing the duplicates and analyzing the titles and abstracts, 79 references were evaluated and passed to the next phase, which comprised the complete reading of the article. A total of 39 publications were eligible for this study. In 52% of the studies, the authors used the liquid-liquid extraction method (LLE), while in 41%, the solid-phase extraction method (SPE) was used. A total of 5% used microextraction methods and 2% used less-conventional techniques. The literature on the main methods used, the LLE and SPE methods, is extensive and consolidated; however, we found other studies that reported modifications of these traditional techniques, which were equally validated for use in LC-MS/MS. From this review, it is concluded that the diversity of techniques, reliability, and practical information about each analytical method used in this study can be adapted to advances in LC-MS/MS techniques; however, more ecological, economic, and sustainable approaches should be explored in the future.

Indexed as

liquid chromatographyliquid–liquid extractionmass spectrometrysample preparation methods

Identifiers

PMID36005622
PMCPMC9416228
OpenAlexW4292264306

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.