The good and the bad of the innate immune response in necrotizing enterocolitis.

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. CCL3 aggravates intestinal damage in NEC by promoting macrophage chemotaxis and M1 macrophage polarization.Pediatric research · 2023
   Article
2. Irf5 deficiency in myeloid cells prevents necrotizing enterocolitis by inhibiting M1 macrophage polarization.Mucosal immunology · 2019
   Article
3. Innate immune function by Toll-like receptors: distinct responses in newborns and the elderly.Immunity · 2012
   Review
4. Intestinal alkaline phosphatase administration in newborns decreases systemic inflammatory cytokine expression in a neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis rat model.The Journal of surgical research · 2012
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Role of neutrophils and macrophages in the pathogenesis of necrotizing enterocolitis caused by Cronobacter sakazakii.2012

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as