Roger et al. respond to "future of population studies".

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Spider venom-derived peptide JZTX-14 prevents migration and invasion of breast cancer cellsFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023
   Article
2. Comparing invasiveness of native and non-native species under changing climate in North-East India: ecological niche modelling with plant types differing in biogeographic origin.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2020
   Article
3. Acquisition, Analysis, and Sharing of Data in 2015 and Beyond: A Survey of the Landscape: A Conference Report From the American Heart Association Data Summit 2015.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Invited commentary: future of population studies--defining research priorities and processes.2015

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as