ArticleStudies in mycology2016
Article in Studies in mycology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 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
47 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large-scale genome re-annotation uncovers pathogen-specific lncRNA regulators of fungal growth and virulence.PLoS pathogens · 2026Article
- Taxonomic re-identification and biotechnological potential of a Brazilian Aspergillus section Flavi collection: exploring kojic acid production.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Article
- From chaos to tranquillity: a modern approach to the identification, nomenclature and phylogeny ofStudies in mycology · 2025Article
- Section-level genome sequencing and comparative genomics ofStudies in mycology · 2025Article
- IMA fungus · 2025Review
- Comparative genomics ofCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2025Article
- What are the 100 most cited fungal genera?Studies in mycology · 2024Article
- What do We Know about Cryptic Aspergillosis?Microorganisms · 2024Review
- A review of recently introducedStudies in mycology · 2024Article
- Changes in fungal taxonomy: mycological rationale and clinical implications.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2023Review
- A conceptual framework for nomenclatural stability and validity of medically important fungi: a proposed global consensus guideline for fungal name changes supported by ABP, ASM, CLSI, ECMM, ESCMID-EFISG, EUCAST-AFST, FDLC, IDSA, ISHAM, MMSA, and MSGERC.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Article
- Combined Toxicity of the Most Common Indoor Aspergilli.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Four new endophytic species ofMycoKeys · 2023Article
- Fungal Nomenclature: Managing Change is the Name of the Game.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Review
- Re-Identification ofMycobiology · 2023Article
- Long-Term Investigation of Marine-DerivedMycobiology · 2023Article
- Reducing the number of accepted species inStudies in mycology · 2022Article
- Four New Species ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Fungal quinones: diversity, producers, and applications of quinones from Aspergillus, Penicillium, Talaromyces, Fusarium, and Arthrinium.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.