ArticleNature microbiology2018
Author Correction: New activities for old antibiotics.
Article in Nature microbiology, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the version of this News and Views originally published, the author made an incorrect reference to 'mice deficient in Mx1'. This has now been corrected so that the text instead refers to 'mice congenic for Mx1'. The full corrected sentence reads as "Pretreatment of mice congenic for Mx1, an ISG that is critical for protection of animals from influenza, with intranasal neomycin significantly improved survival; however, about 50% of the mice died."
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.