Reply to Witwer.

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. Potential relevance of microRNAs in inter-species epigenetic communication, and implications for disease pathogenesis.RNA biology · 2017
   Review
2. Milk disrupts p53 and DNMT1, the guardians of the genome: implications for acne vulgaris and prostate cancer.Nutrition & metabolism · 2017
   Article
3. Formidable challenges to the notion of biologically important roles for dietary small RNAs in ingesting mammals.Genes & nutrition · 2017
   Review
4. Negligible uptake and transfer of diet-derived pollen microRNAs in adult honey bees.RNA biology · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  MicroRNAs are absorbed in biologically meaningful amounts from nutritionally relevant doses of cow milk and affect gene expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, HEK-293 kidney cell cultures, and mouse livers.2014
• Comment on
  Diet-responsive mammalian miRNAs are likely endogenous.2014

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as