The size of melamine-induced stones is dependent on the melamine content of the formula fed, but not on duration of exposure.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Clinical observation of childhood urinary stones induced by melamine-tainted infant formula in Anhui province, China.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2013
   Article
2. Renal crystal formation after combined or sequential oral administration of melamine and cyanuric acid.Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2010
   Article
3. Analysis of trace amounts of adulterants found in powders/supplements utilizing Raman spectroscopy coupled to direct analyte-probed nanoextraction-nanospray ionization-mass spectrometry.Analytical methods : advancing methods and applications
   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

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as