ReviewMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2022
In Melting Points We Trust: A Review on the Misguiding Characterization of Multicomponent Reactions Adducts and Intermediates.
Review in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Solvent-Controlled Reaction Productivity and Mechanistic Pathways in the Multicomponent Synthesis of 2‑Amino-3-cyano‑4ACS organic & inorganic Au · 2026Article
- Comparative Study: Biguanide-, Sulfonamide-, and Natural Agent-Based Interventions in an In Vivo Experimental Diabetes Model.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Comparative study of cerium-manganese ratios in the design of Ce-Mn-binuclear LDH-based Cu complex: a potent nanocatalyst for the green synthesis of spiro[acridine-9,3'-indole]triones.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We discuss herein the problems associated with using melting points to characterize multicomponent reactions' (MCRs) products and intermediates. Although surprising, it is not rare to find articles in which these MCRs final adducts (or their intermediates) are characterized solely by comparing melting points with those available from other reports. A brief survey among specialized articles highlights serious and obvious problems with this practice since, for instance, cases are found in which as many as 25 quite contrasting melting points have been attributed to the very same MCR adduct. Indeed, it seems logical to assume that the inherent non-confirmatory nature of melting points could be vastly misleading as a protocol for structural confirmation, but still many publications (also in the Q1 and Q2 quartiles) insist on using it. This procedure contradicts best practices in organic synthesis, and articles fraught with limitations and misleading conclusions have been published in the MCRs field. The drawbacks inherent to this practice are indeed serious and have misguided MCRs advances. We therefore suggest some precautions aimed at avoiding future confusions.
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.