Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations.

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.

1. Are peer reviewers influenced by their work being cited?eLife · 2025
   Article
2. An Improved Peer-Review System to Compensate for Scientific Misconduct in Health-Sensitive Topics.Public health reviews · 2023
   Article
3. Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.Clinical rheumatology · 2020
   Review
4. On the difficulties of being rigorous in environmental geochemistry studies: some recommendations for designing an impactful paper.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Set citation data free.2019

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as