ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2019
Development of a blood oxygenation phantom for photoacoustic tomography combined with online pO2 detection and flow spectrometry (Erratum).
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guided Multispectral Optoacoustic Tomography for 3D Imaging of the Murine Colon.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Criteria for the design of tissue-mimicking phantoms for the standardization of biophotonic instrumentation.Nature biomedical engineering · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The erratum corrects an error in the article "Development of a blood oxygenation phantom for photoacoustic tomography combined with online pO
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.