Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29033654›Full record

ArticlePhytoKeys2017

A revision of the

Sandra Knapp, Eva Sagona, Anna K Z Carbonell, Franco Chiarini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PhytoKeys, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Structural dynamics of real and modelledJournal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022
    Article
  10. Milk-Gelling Properties of Proteases Extracted from the Fruits ofInternational journal of food science · 2022
    Article
  11. 5S Ribosomal DNA of GenusFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. A revision ofPhytoKeys · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. PhytoKeys · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. PhytoKeys · 2019
    Article
  19. 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.

Sandra KnappDepartment of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom.
Eva SagonaDepartment of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom.
Anna K Z CarbonellBiological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom.
Franco ChiariniInstituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), CONICET-UNC, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The

Indexed as

amphitropicalconservation statusinvasive specieslectotypificationLeptostemonumNew Worldpreliminary conservation statusSolanaceaespiny solanumsweeds

Identifiers

PMID29033654
PMCPMC5624188

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.