Hahyoungchilella caricis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a rhizosphere mudflat of a halophyte (Carex scabrifolia), transfer of Thioclava arenosa Thongphrom et al. 2017 to Pseudothioclava as Pseudothioclava arenosa gen. nov., comb. nov. and proposal of Thioclava electrotropha Chang et al. 2018 as a later heterosynonym of Thioclava sediminum.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Two Novel Thiosulfate-Oxidizing Species from Coastal Sediments Reveal Distinct Ecological Strategies:Microorganisms · 2026
   Article
2. Genome-based analysis of the familyFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum issued
  Erratum to: Hahyoungchilella caricis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a rhizosphere mudflat of a halophyte (Carex scabrifolia), transfer of Thioclava arenosa Thongphrom et al. 2017 to Pseudothioclava as Pseudothioclava arenosa gen. nov., comb. nov. and proposal of Thioclava electrotropha Chang et al. 2018 as a later heterosynonym of Thioclava sediminum.2020

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as