Murine monoclonal antibodies specific for lipopolysaccharide of Escherichia coli O26 and O111.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Development of a robust method for isolation of shiga toxin-positive Escherichia coli (STEC) from fecal, plant, soil and water samples from a leafy greens production region in California.PloS one · 2013
   Article
2. Dual-serotype biofilm formation by shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7 and O26:H11 strains.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2012
   Article
3. Molecular serotyping of Escherichia coli O26:H11.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2005
   Article
4. Murine monoclonal antibodies against Escherichia coli O4 lipopolysaccharide and H5 flagellin.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2001
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as