ReviewAnalytical chemistry2025
Securing the Future of NMR Metabolomics Reproducibility: A Call for Standardized Reporting.
Review in Analytical chemistry, 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.
- Trends in Computational Metabolomics: A Perspective on Five Years of Software Development, Challenges, and Opportunities (2021-2025).Analytical chemistry · 2026Review
- A Universal Framework for Blood Ionome Extraction and Intelligent Quality Control inAnalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Parsing Neurometabolic Signatures of Multiple Sclerosis with MRSI and cPCA.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metabolomics is a rapidly growing multidisciplinary field with ever increasing demand and usability, which is attracting a surge of new researchers. While their varied skill sets, scientific questions, and approaches enrich the field with fresh perspectives and innovation, individual investigators also bring wide-ranging levels of metabolomics-specific experience and diverse areas of interest. These factors introduce considerable variability and inconsistency in both the methodology and reporting. A recent comparative literature review of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) metabolomics from studies published in 2010 and 2020 revealed significant shortcomings in the reporting of experimental details necessary for evaluating both the scientific rigor and the reproducibility of NMR-based metabolomics experiments. Each stage of metabolomics research contains multiple methodological choices and various optimization parameters, all of which can introduce experimental bias and alter the study results. This emphasizes the need for proper reporting to enhance reproducibility, data reusability, and study comparability. To address these concerns, the NMR Special Interest Group within the Metabolomics Association of North America presents reporting recommendations focused on fundamental aspects of NMR metabolomics research identified from the detailed literature review report. These include specifics with respect to study design, sample preparation, data acquisition, data processing and analysis, data accessibility, and comparability to previous studies. Also presented is a complementary list of seminal papers in the field to guide the study design and implementation of NMR metabolomics experiments. This initiative seeks to enhance the long-term impact of NMR metabolomics by supporting high-quality, reproducible, and impactful data collected from well-executed and thoroughly reported studies.
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.