ReviewMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Unveiling the Power of Computational Tools in Chiral Liquid Chromatography.
Review in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Chiral liquid chromatography (cLC) using chiral stationary phases (CSPs) has become a crucial technique for separating enantiomers. Understanding enantiomeric discrimination is essential for improving chromatographic conditions and elucidating chiral molecular recognition; the computational methods are extremely helpful for this. To assess the relevance of the association of these two approaches and to analyze the current trends, in this review, a systematic analysis of the scientific literature was performed, covering recently published works (from 2015 to January 2025) on enantioseparation by cLC using CSPs and computational studies. CSPs based on polysaccharides and Pirkle-type were the most described (accounting for 52% and 14% of the studies, respectively). Regarding the computational methods, molecular docking and molecular dynamics (MD) were the most reported (accounting for 50% and 25% of the studies, respectively). In the articles surveyed, a significant growth in research concerning both cLC enantioseparation and computational studies is evident, emphasizing the benefit of the synergy between these two approaches.
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.