↓ Skip to main content

A Review on Microdialysis Calibration Methods: the Theory and Current Related Efforts

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Neurobiology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
A Review on Microdialysis Calibration Methods: the Theory and Current Related Efforts
Published in
Molecular Neurobiology, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12035-016-9929-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun Min Kho, Siti Kartini Enche Ab Rahim, Zainal Arifin Ahmad, Norazharuddin Shah Abdullah

Abstract

Microdialysis is a sampling technique first introduced in the late 1950s. Although this technique was originally designed to study endogenous compounds in animal brain, it is later modified to be used in other organs. Additionally, microdialysis is not only able to collect unbound concentration of compounds from tissue sites; this technique can also be used to deliver exogenous compounds to a designated area. Due to its versatility, microdialysis technique is widely employed in a number of areas, including biomedical research. However, for most in vivo studies, the concentration of substance obtained directly from the microdialysis technique does not accurately describe the concentration of the substance on-site. In order to relate the results collected from microdialysis to the actual in vivo condition, a calibration method is required. To date, various microdialysis calibration methods have been reported, with each method being capable to provide valuable insights of the technique itself and its applications. This paper aims to provide a critical review on various calibration methods used in microdialysis applications, inclusive of a detailed description of the microdialysis technique itself to start with. It is expected that this article shall review in detail, the various calibration methods employed, present examples of work related to each calibration method including clinical efforts, plus the advantages and disadvantages of each of the methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Chemistry 11 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 9%
Engineering 7 9%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2019.
All research outputs
#6,976,330
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Neurobiology
#1,287
of 3,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,626
of 326,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Neurobiology
#36
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.