ArticleProceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science2010
PCR Assay Specific for Chicken Feces.
Article in Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying Enteropathogen Contamination along Chicken Value Chains in Maputo, Mozambique: A Multidisciplinary and Mixed-Methods Approach to Identifying High Exposure Settings.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Effect of the Organic Loading Rate Increase and the Presence of Zeolite on Microbial Community Composition and Process Stability During Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Wastes.Microbial ecology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Identifiers
24839330PMC4022594W2106546920What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.