Reply to "Letter to the editor: When what you see may not be what you get: prudent considerations of anesthetics for murine echocardiography".

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Reply to "Letter to the editor: When what you see may not be what you get: prudent considerations of anesthetics for murine echocardiography".American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Best anesthetics for assessing left ventricular systolic function by echocardiography in mice.2015
• Comment on
  Letter to the editor: When what you see might not be what you get: prudent considerations of anesthetics for murine echocardiography.2015

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as