Dual-Stimuli Responsive Carbon Nanotube Sponge-PDMS Amphibious Actuator.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Functional Fibers and Fabrics for Soft Robotics, Wearables, and Human-Robot Interface.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2021
   Review
2. Smart Actuators Based on External Stimulus Response.Frontiers in chemistry · 2021
   Review
3. Effect of Structure of Polymers Grafted from Graphene Oxide on the Compatibility of Particles with a Silicone-Based Environment and the Stimuli-Responsive Capabilities of Their Composites.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
   Article

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

Abstract

Indexed as