ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2016
Erratum to: Psychosocial acceptance of cleft patients: has something changed?
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum forPsychosocial acceptance of cleft patients: has something changed?2016 · Nattapong, Sirintawat [Corrected to Sirintawat, Nattapong]
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The original version of the above article contained a mistake in the presentation of one of the author names. Instead of Sirintawat Nattapong, it should be presented as Nattapong Sirintawat.
Identifiers
26256127What 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.