DBS LC-MS TDM Literature Review
Budget: ₹600 – ₹1,500 INR
I am putting together the literature review chapter for my thesis on dried-blood-spot (DBS) based therapeutic drug monitoring of Mycophenolic acid using liquid-chromatography mass-spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The section I still need written should zero-in on recent methodological advancements—everything from novel DBS sampling strategies to the latest LC-MS/MS optimisation steps and validation approaches, also including clinical implication of Dried blood spot based monitoring as a novel factor over other method of sample collection like venous/plasma/saliva.
Please work exclusively with peer-reviewed journal articles and aim to weave in 41–60 high-quality papers published within roughly the last decade. I want more than a citation dump: each study should be succinctly summarised, critiqued for strengths and limitations, and linked back to its practical impact on Mycophenolic acid monitoring. Databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus are fine; feel free to organise references with EndNote, Zotero or your preferred manager as long as a clean reference list (Vancouver style) is delivered.
Key deliverables:
• A cohesive 3,500-4,500-word narrative review highlighting methodological progress.
• An annotated bibliography of the 41–60 papers (1–2 sentences per entry).
• A compiled reference list exported from your citation software.
The writing should read as part of a post graduate-level thesis: clear, critical, and backed by solid evidence. I will consider the job complete once the text integrates smoothly into my existing draft, all citations resolve correctly, and no plagiarism issues arise.
Please work exclusively with peer-reviewed journal articles and aim to weave in 41–60 high-quality papers published within roughly the last decade. I want more than a citation dump: each study should be succinctly summarised, critiqued for strengths and limitations, and linked back to its practical impact on Mycophenolic acid monitoring. Databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus are fine; feel free to organise references with EndNote, Zotero or your preferred manager as long as a clean reference list (Vancouver style) is delivered.
Key deliverables:
• A cohesive 3,500-4,500-word narrative review highlighting methodological progress.
• An annotated bibliography of the 41–60 papers (1–2 sentences per entry).
• A compiled reference list exported from your citation software.
The writing should read as part of a post graduate-level thesis: clear, critical, and backed by solid evidence. I will consider the job complete once the text integrates smoothly into my existing draft, all citations resolve correctly, and no plagiarism issues arise.