ReviewCritical care (London, England)2016
Metabonomics and intensive care.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Breaking bad news in the era of artificial intelligence and algorithmic medicine: an exploration of disclosure and its ethical justification using the hedonic calculus.AI and ethics · 2022Article
- Metabolomics as a valid analytical technique in environmental exposure research: application and progress.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2022Review
- Curcuminoids for Metabolic Syndrome: Meta-Analysis Evidences Toward Personalized Prevention and Treatment Management.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Review
- Metabolomics: An emerging potential approach to decipher critical illnesses.Biophysical chemistry · 2020Review
- Plasma metabolomics of early parenteral nutrition followed with enteral nutrition in pancreatic surgery patients.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Metabolome alterations in severe critical illness and vitamin D status.Critical care (London, England) · 2017Article
- Precision medicine in pediatric oncology: Lessons learned and next steps.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency medicine 2016. Other selected articles can be found online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2016. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.