Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27469255›Full record

ReviewDong wu xue yan jiu = Zoological research2016

Research proceedings on amphibian model organisms.

Lu-Sha Liu, Lan-Ying Zhao, Shou-Hong Wang, Jian-Ping Jiang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dong wu xue yan jiu = Zoological research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Genomics data · 2017
    Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Lu-Sha LiuChengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China.
Lan-Ying ZhaoChengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China;University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
Shou-Hong WangChengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China;University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
Jian-Ping JiangChengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China. jiangjp@cib.ac.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Model organisms have long been important in biology and medicine due to their specific characteristics. Amphibians, especially Xenopus, play key roles in answering fundamental questions on developmental biology, regeneration, genetics, and toxicology due to their large and abundant eggs, as well as their versatile embryos, which can be readily manipulated and developed in vivo. Furthermore, amphibians have also proven to be of considerable benefit in human disease research due to their conserved cellular developmental and genomic organization. This review gives a brief introduction on the progress and limitations of these animal models in biology and human disease research, and discusses the potential and challenge of Microhyla fissipes as a new model organism.

Indexed as

AmphibiansModels, AnimalResearch DesignAnimalsCell CycleHumansRegenerationToxicologyAmphibianBiomedicineLife ScienceMicrohyla fissipesModel organism

Identifiers

PMID27469255
PMCPMC4980064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.