Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15803193›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2005

The evolving field of biodefence: therapeutic developments and diagnostics.

James C Burnett, Erik A Henchal, Alan L Schmaljohn, Sina Bavari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Sepsis: mechanisms of bacterial injury to the patient.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2019
    Review
  8. Article
  9. A review on the antagonist Ebola: A prophylactic approach.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2017
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

James C BurnettDevelopmental Therapeutics Program, Target Structure-Based Drug Discovery Group, National Cancer Institute-SAIC, Frederick, Maryland 21702, USA.
Erik A Henchal
Alan L Schmaljohn
Sina Bavari

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The threat of bioterrorism and the potential use of biological weapons against both military and civilian populations has become a major concern for governments around the world. For example, in 2001 anthrax-tainted letters resulted in several deaths, caused widespread public panic and exerted a heavy economic toll. If such a small-scale act of bioterrorism could have such a huge impact, then the effects of a large-scale attack would be catastrophic. This review covers recent progress in developing therapeutic countermeasures against, and diagnostics for, such agents.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntiviral AgentsBioterrorismCommunicable DiseasesCommunicable Disease ControlDisease OutbreaksDrug DesignMolecular StructureAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntiviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID15803193
PMCPMC7096857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.