Erratum to: An ecological risk assessment of heavy metal contamination in the surface sediments of Bosten Lake, northwest China.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metals to aquatic organisms in the Lhasa River, Tibet, China.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020
   Article
2. Indirect effect of nutrient accumulation intensified toxicity risk of metals in sediments from urban river network.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  An ecological risk assessment of heavy metal contamination in the surface sediments of Bosten Lake, northwest China.2016

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.