ArticlePloS one2024
An immunochromatographic strip sensor for marbofloxacin residues.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sustainable HPLC method for simultaneous determination of Cefazolin, Sulfadimidine, and Marbofloxacin residues in milk.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Modern Analytical Chemistry: Current Trends and Future Directions.International journal of analytical chemistry · 2026Review
- Experimental Study and Molecular Modeling of Antibody Interactions with Different Fluoroquinolones.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Marbofloxacin (MBF) was once widely used as a veterinary drug to control diseases in animals. MBF residues in animal food endanger human health. In the present study, an immunochromatographic strip assay (ICSA) utilizing a competitive principle was developed to rapidly detect MBF in beef samples. The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) and the limit of detection (LOD) of the ICSAs were 2.5 ng/mL and 0.5 ng/mL, respectively. The cross-reactivity (CR) of the MBF ICSAs to Ofloxacin (OFL), enrofloxacin (ENR), norfloxacin (NOR), and Ciprofloxacin (CIP) were 60.98%, 32.05%, 22.94%, and 23.58%, respectively. The CR for difloxacin (DIF) and sarafloxacin (SAR) was less than 0.1%. The recovery rates of MBF in spiked beef samples ranged from 82.0% to 90.4%. The intra-assay and interassay coefficients of variation (CVs) were below 10%. In addition, when the same authentic beef samples were detected in a side-by-side comparison between the ICSAs and HPLC‒MS, no statistically significant difference was observed. Therefore, the proposed ICSAs can be a useful tool for monitoring MBF residues in beef samples in a qualitative and quantitative manner.
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.