ReviewAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Ten "Cheat Codes" for Measuring Oxidative Stress in Humans.
Review in Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- (Poly)phenols: Mechanisms of action and efficacy of contemporary supplements for exercise recovery and performance.Experimental physiology · 2026Review
- Proteoforms as the true units of physiological function.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Review
- Response of Human Red Blood Cells to Acute and Chronic Oxidant Challenge as Observed Through the Glutathione and Glutathionyl-Hemoglobin Redox Pairs In Vitro and In Vivo.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Plasma, Urinary, and Salivary Total Redox Status in Critically Ill Patients with Brain Injury and Secondary Organ Failure.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Optimal timing to assess exercise-induced oxidative stress: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Experimental physiology · 2025Review
- Total Antioxidant Status in Critically Ill Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury and Secondary Organ Failure-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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
Formidable and often seemingly insurmountable conceptual, technical, and methodological challenges hamper the measurement of oxidative stress in humans. For instance, fraught and flawed methods, such as the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances assay kits for lipid peroxidation, rate-limit progress. To advance translational redox research, we present ten comprehensive "cheat codes" for measuring oxidative stress in humans. The cheat codes include analytical approaches to assess reactive oxygen species, antioxidants, oxidative damage, and redox regulation. They provide essential conceptual, technical, and methodological information inclusive of curated "do" and "don't" guidelines. Given the biochemical complexity of oxidative stress, we present a research question-grounded decision tree guide for selecting the most appropriate cheat code(s) to implement in a prospective human experiment. Worked examples demonstrate the benefits of the decision tree-based cheat code selection tool. The ten cheat codes define an invaluable resource for measuring oxidative stress in humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.