ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2018
Corrigendum:
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Cellulose-functionalized magnetic nanoparticle-mediated isolation of novel cellulolytic bacteria.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025Article
- Complete genome sequencing and investigation on the fiber-degrading potential of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain TL106 from the tibetan pig.BMC microbiology · 2022Article
- Nitrogen Acquisition Strategies Mediated by Insect Symbionts: A Review of Their Mechanisms, Methodologies, and Case Studies.Insects · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[This corrects the article on p. 1970 in vol. 8, PMID: 29075241.].
Indexed as
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.