ArticleInfection and immunity2009
Important science--it's all about the SPIN.
Article in Infection and immunity, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz celebrates 115 years of scientific publishing: what it needs to keep moving on….Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2024Article
- Elegant Science.mBio · 2018Article
- Reply to "On the Impact Factor and the ASM Editorial Policy".Infection and immunity · 2017Article
- Article
- Revolutionary Science.mBio · 2016Article
- (A)Historical science.Infection and immunity · 2015Article
- Impacted science: impact is not importance.mBio · 2015Article
- Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015Article
- Article
- A new synthesis for dual use research of concern.PLoS medicine · 2015Article
- Article
- Specialized science.Infection and immunity · 2014Article
- Review
- Retracted science and the retraction index.Infection and immunity · 2011Article
- Reproducible science.Infection and immunity · 2010Article
- Lost in translation--basic science in the era of translational research.Infection and immunity · 2010Review
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
The importance of a scientific finding can be difficult to ascertain because it requires both subjective judgment and foresight. We propose criteria, based upon whether a discovery is sizeable (S), practical (P), integrated (I), and new (N), that can be used individually or collectively to systematically assess the importance of a finding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.