ArticleLasers in medical science2019
Correction to: Comparative study using fractional carbon dioxide laser versus glycolic acid peel in treatment of pseudo-acanthosis nigricans.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2019. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unfortunately, there are two mistakes in the published article. The first mistake is found in the Results section, Clinical improvement subsection. The last sentence "There was no statistical difference between both sides (P=0.008)." should be corrected to "There was statistical difference between both sides (P=0.008)."
Identifiers
30680537What 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.