SynthesisMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2024
Current data processing methods and reporting standards for untargeted analysis of volatile organic compounds using direct mass spectrometry: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mass Spectrometry-Based Chromatographic and Computational Workflows for Biomarker and Therapeutic Target Discovery: A Comprehensive Review.Biomedical chromatography : BMC · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUntargeted direct mass spectrometric analysis of volatile organic compounds has many potential applications across fields such as healthcare and food safety. However, robust data processing protocols must be employed to ensure that research is replicable and practical applications can be realised. User-friendly data processing and statistical tools are becoming increasingly available; however, the use of these tools have neither been analysed, nor are they necessarily suited for every data type.
objectivesThis review aims to analyse data processing and analytic workflows currently in use and examine whether methodological reporting is sufficient to enable replication.
methodsStudies identified from Web of Science and Scopus databases were systematically examined against the inclusion criteria. The experimental, data processing, and data analysis workflows were reviewed for the relevant studies.
resultsFrom 459 studies identified from the databases, a total of 110 met the inclusion criteria. Very few papers provided enough detail to allow all aspects of the methodology to be replicated accurately, with only three meeting previous guidelines for reporting experimental methods. A wide range of data processing methods were used, with only eight papers (7.3%) employing a largely similar workflow where direct comparability was achievable.
conclusionsStandardised workflows and reporting systems need to be developed to ensure research in this area is replicable, comparable, and held to a high standard. Thus, allowing the wide-ranging potential applications to be realised.
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.