Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23715031›Full record

ReviewVirulence2013

Recent mouse and rat methods for the study of experimental oral candidiasis.

Anna C B P Costa, Cristiane A Pereira, Juliana C Junqueira, Antonio O C Jorge

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Virulence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Symbiosis and Dysbiosis of the Human Mycobiome.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Oral Candidiasis: A Disease of Opportunity.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  11. Frontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  12. Fungal-Bacterial Interactions in Health and Disease.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Anna C B P CostaDepartment of Microbial Pathogenicity Mechanisms; Hans-Knoell-Institute; Jena, Germany.
Cristiane A Pereira
Juliana C Junqueira
Antonio O C Jorge
Institute of Engineering Science · RUInstitute of Science and TechnologyShanghai Institute for Science of Science · CNUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Candida genus expresses virulence factors that, when combined with immunosuppression and other risk factors, can cause different manifestations of oral candidiasis. The treatment of mucosal infections caused by Candida and the elucidation of the disease process have proven challenging. Therefore, the study of experimentally induced oral candidiasis in rats and mice is useful to clarify the etiopathology of this condition, improve diagnosis, and search for new therapeutic options because the disease process in these animals is similar to that of human candidiasis lesions. Here, we describe and discuss new studies involving rat and mouse models of oral candidiasis with respect to methods for inducing experimental infection, methods for evaluating the development of experimental candidiasis, and new treatment strategies for oral candidiasis.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsCandidaCandidiasis, OralHumansMiceRatsCandida albicansmurine modeloral candidiasisoral cavity

Identifiers

PMID23715031
PMCPMC3714131
OpenAlexW1979896286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.