ArticleAMB Express2018
Correction to: Microbial diversity of saline environments: searching for cytotoxic activities.
Article in AMB Express, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The original version of this article (Diaz-Cardenas et al. 2017) unfortunately contained a mistake in Fig. 1. The pie chart of Fig. 1 should explain the distribution of the relative abundance of the Bacteria and Archaea strains isolated at Zipaquirá salt mine: Proteobacteria 39%; Actinobacteria 9%, Bacteroidetes 1%, Archaea 3% and Firmicutes 48% instead of NOMBRE DE CATEGORIA [PORCENTAJE]. The corrected Fig. 1 and caption are given below.
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.