ArticleMicroscopy (Oxford, England)2018
Observation of wet specimens sensitive to evaporation using scanning electron microscopy.
Article in Microscopy (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Image-Based Pore Space and Pore Network Characterization: A Review of 2D/3D Workflow in Foods.Journal of food science · 2026Review
- Bacterial nanocellulose: biosynthesis, structural properties and vascular tissue engineering applications.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Review
- Spatially Resolving Size Effects on Diffusivity in Nanoporous Extracellular Matrix-like Materials with Fluorescence Correlation Spectroscopy Super-Resolution Optical Fluctuation Imaging.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2023Article
- Exploring the missing link between soil total antioxidant capacity and herbicide-induced stress on the earthworm Eudrilus eugeniae (Kinberg).Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wet specimens are notoriously difficult to image in scanning electron microscopes (SEM) owing to evaporation from the required vacuum of the specimen chamber. Traditionally, this issue has been addressed by increasing the specimen chamber pressure. Unfortunately, observation under high specimen chamber pressure cannot prevent the initial evaporation effects. The wet cover method, where the original surface water is retained (and, therefore, considered wet), provides a way to introduce and subsequently image specimens that are sensitive to evaporation within a SEM, while preventing evaporation-related damage, and to observe interesting specimen-water interactions.
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.