Science publishing: The paper is not sacred.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity.F1000Research · 2019
   Article
2. Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed.Reproductive health · 2018
   Article
3. Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism.Scientometrics · 2014
   Article
4. Is there "self plagiarism" and "salami" publishing in JASMS?Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2013
   Article
5. Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information.PloS one · 2012
   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

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as