Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25793428›Full record

ReviewMarine drugs2015

Toxic picoplanktonic cyanobacteria--review.

Natalia Jakubowska, Elżbieta Szeląg-Wasielewska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Marine drugs, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Environmental risk factors for liver cancer.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Oral Cyanobacteria and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors.

Natalia JakubowskaDepartment of Water Protection, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Poland. jakubowskan@gmail.com.
Elżbieta Szeląg-WasielewskaDepartment of Water Protection, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Poland. eszelag@amu.edu.pl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cyanobacteria of a picoplanktonic cell size (0.2 to 2.0 µm) are common organisms of both freshwater and marine ecosystems. However, due to their small size and relatively short study history, picoplanktonic cyanobacteria, in contrast to the microplanktonic cyanobacteria, still remains a poorly studied fraction of plankton. So far, only little information on picocyanobacteria toxicity has been reported, while the number of reports concerning their presence in ecosystems is increasing. Thus, the issue of picocyanobacteria toxicity needs more researchers' attention and interest. In this report, we present information on the current knowledge concerning the picocyanobacteria toxicity, as well as their harmfulness and problems they can cause.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell SizeCyanobacteriaHumansMarine ToxinsPhytoplanktonMarine Toxins

Identifiers

PMID25793428
PMCPMC4377996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.