Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29377342›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2018

Merchants of doubt in the free-ranging cat conflict.

Scott R Loss, Peter P Marra

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Calling a trade-off a trade-off in arguments for cat confinement.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The potential consequences of 'bee washing' on wild bee health and conservation.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A moral panic over cats.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2019
    Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Scott R LossDepartment of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, 008C Ag Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0002-8753-2995
Peter P MarraMigratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, P.O. Box 37012 MRC 5503, Washington, D.C. 20013, U.S.A.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Animals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesAnimalsCatsData Collection

Identifiers

PMID29377342

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.