Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23376340›Full record

ReviewBiotechnology advances2013

Advances in the diagnosis of key gastrointestinal nematode infections of livestock, with an emphasis on small ruminants.

Florian Roeber, Aaron R Jex, Robin B Gasser

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biotechnology advances, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Image recognition based on deep learning inComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Florian RoeberFaculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Aaron R Jex
Robin B Gasser
University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Parasitic nematodes (roundworms) of livestock have major economic impact globally. In spite of the diseases caused by these nematodes and some advances in the design of new therapeutic agents (anthelmintics) and attempts to develop vaccines against some of them, there has been limited progress in the establishment of practical diagnostic techniques. The specific and sensitive diagnosis of gastrointestinal nematode infections of livestock underpins effective disease control, which is highly relevant now that anthelmintic resistance (AR) is a major problem. Traditional diagnostic techniques have major constraints, in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief background on gastrointestinal nematodes (Strongylida) of livestock and their control; to summarize conventional methods used for the diagnosis and discuss their constraints; to review key molecular-diagnostic methods and recent progress in the development of advanced amplification-based and sequencing technologies, and their implications for epidemiological investigations and the control of parasitic diseases.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal DiseasesNematode InfectionsParasitologyAnimalsBiotechnologyCattleLivestockSheepBiotechnologyLivestockParasitesSpecific diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID23376340
PMCPMC7126997
OpenAlexW2050157400

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.