Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16308862›Full record

ReviewAnatomical record. Part B, New anatomist2005

Eye on regeneration.

Mindy K Call, Matthew W Grogg, Panagiotis A Tsonis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anatomical record. Part B, New anatomist, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Modeling Cataract Surgery in Mice.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Anesthesia with Tricaine Methanesulfonate (MS222) and Propofol and Its Use for Computed Tomography of Red Swamp Crayfish (Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Lens regeneration: a historical perspective.The International journal of developmental biology · 2018
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Biomarkers for epithelial-mesenchymal transitions.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2009
    Review
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

3 authors.

Mindy K CallUniversity of Dayton, Ohio 45469, USA.
Matthew W Grogg
Panagiotis A Tsonis

Funding

GENE REGULATION IN LENS REGENERATIONR01EY010540 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON · PI TSONIS, PANAGIOTIS A · 1995 to 2013
$3.3M
NEI NIH HHS EY10540NEI NIH HHS R01 EY010540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lens regeneration in newts is a remarkable process, whereby a lost tissue is replaced by transdifferentiation of adult tissues that only a few organisms possess. In this review, we will touch on the approaches being used to study this phenomenon, recent advances in the field of lens regeneration, similarities and differences between development and regeneration, as well as the potential role stem cells may play in understanding this process.

Indexed as

AnimalsEmbryonic DevelopmentLens, CrystallineRegenerationSalamandridaeStem Cells

Identifiers

PMID16308862
PMCPMC2556859

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.