Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28603673›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2017

A methodology of theropod print replication utilising the pedal reconstruction of

Matt A White, Alex G Cook, Steven J Rumbold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Matt A WhiteSchool of Engineering, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Alex G CookPalaeontology, Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History, Winton, Queensland, Australia.
Steven J RumboldPalaeontology, Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum of Natural History, Winton, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distinguishing the difference between theropod and ornithopod footprints has proved a difficult task due to their similarities. Herein our aim was to produce a method where a skeleton could be more closely matched to actual fossilised footprints. The reconstructed pes of the Australian Megaraptoran

Indexed as

AustralovenatorLark QuarryMegaraptoridTheropodTrackway

Identifiers

PMID28603673
PMCPMC5463970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.