ArticleMethodsX2025
Determination of the optimal method for measuring malondialdehyde in human saliva.
Article in MethodsX, 2025. 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.
- Temporal multi-omics analysis of HSF-HSP and flavonoid pathways under heat stress in Iris.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Physiological Response ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evolution of sexual health of patients with head and neck cancer before, during, and 1 year after treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While few methodological studies have been published on the salivary measurement of malondialdehyde (MDA), none have precisely detailed the analytical method. This work presents the development of an analytical method for MDA measurement in microvolumes of saliva samples from healthy individuals, using thiobarbituric acid derivatization and fluorescence reading of the formed compound. This method was progressively designed to meet specific constraints such as the limited sample volume available, cost-effectiveness of each assay, time required for analysis and costs. After studying the impact of various parameters, quantitative validation of this method was conducted using the accuracy profile. The study demonstrated that the fluorometric analysis method for salivary MDA accurately quantifies the concentration of this molecule within a validity range from 0.031 μM to 2.3 μM. Additionally, the accuracy profile allowed estimation of measurement uncertainty for each concentration level. It was determined that the calibration method using raw data was most appropriate as it introduced the least uncertainty in the obtained results.
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.