ArticleParasites & vectors2019
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Harris.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hepatozoon infections in domestic and wild Carnivora: etiology, prevalence, clinical disease, diagnosis and treatment, and redescription of Hepatozoon silvestris, H. martis, and H. ursi.Parasites & vectors · 2025Review
- The Piroplasmida Babesia, Cytauxzoon, and Theileria in farm and companion animals: species compilation, molecular phylogeny, and evolutionary insights.Parasitology research · 2022Review
- Illuminating the bacterial microbiome of Australian ticks withCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2021Article
- Rules have reasons: response to Greay et al. (2019).Parasites & vectors · 2020Article
- Don't let sleeping dogs lie: unravelling the identity and taxonomy of Babesia canis, Babesia rossi and Babesia vogeli.Parasites & vectors · 2020Review
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a letter to the Editor, Harris considers the eight new species of Apicomplexa that were recently identified and named to be invalid on the basis that only molecular characters were provided in the species descriptions. In this response, we counter that the species names are valid as the descriptions have met the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; molecular characters can be used to satisfy article 13.1.1 of the code.
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.