Corrigendum: Cassava foliage affects the microbial diversity of Chinese indigenous geese caecum using 16S rRNA sequencing.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Effects of floor- and net-rearing systems on intestinal growth and microbial diversity in the ceca of ducks.BMC microbiology · 2022
   Article
2. Uncovering the biogeography of the microbial commmunity and its association with nutrient metabolism in the intestinal tract using a pig model.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022
   Article
3. Comparative characterization of bacterial communities in geese consuming of different proportions of ryegrass.PloS one · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Cassava foliage affects the microbial diversity of Chinese indigenous geese caecum using 16S rRNA sequencing.2017

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract