ReviewJournal of experimental botany2019
Measurement accuracy and uncertainty in plant biomechanics.
Review in Journal of experimental botany, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy Standards of Wearable Technologies for Assessment of Soccer Kicking: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Measurement of maize stalk shear moduli.Plant methods · 2024Article
- The influence of water content on the longitudinal modulus of elasticity of maize stalk pith and rind tissues.Plant methods · 2023Article
- Plant science in the age of simulation intelligence.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- A practical approach example to measurement uncertainty: Evaluation of 26 immunoassay parameters.Biochemia medica · 2022Article
- Multiscale Mechanical Performance of Wood: From Nano- to Macro-Scale across Structure Hierarchy and Size Effects.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The effect of plant weight on estimations of stalk lodging resistance.Plant methods · 2020Article
- An Analysis of Soil Coring Strategies to Estimate Root Depth in Maize (Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2020Article
- Integrated Puncture Score: force-displacement weighted rind penetration tests improve stalk lodging resistance estimations in maize.Plant methods · 2020Article
- Plant biomechanics in the 21st century.Journal of experimental botany · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
All scientific measurements are affected to some degree by both systematic and random errors. The quantification of these errors supports correct interpretation of data, thus supporting scientific progress. Absence of information regarding reliability and accuracy can slow scientific progress, and can lead to a reproducibility crisis. Here we consider both measurement theory and plant biomechanics literature. Drawing from measurement theory literature, we review techniques for assessing both the accuracy and uncertainty of a measurement process. In our survey of plant biomechanics literature, we found that direct assessment of measurement accuracy and uncertainty is not yet common. The advantages and disadvantages of efforts to quantify measurement accuracy and uncertainty are discussed. We conclude with recommended best practices for improving the scientific rigor in plant biomechanics through attention to the issues of measurement accuracy and uncertainty.
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.