ArticleHerz2020
Erratum to: Efficacy of liraglutide intervention in myocardial infarction : A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Herz, 2020. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erratum to:Herz 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-018-4748-5 In the above mentioned article, the affiliations of the authors and the corresponding address were not given correctly. The correct affiliations/address of correspondence is as follows:X. Yang
Identifiers
30694371What 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.