Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31947812›Full record

ReviewInsects2020

Pest Management Challenges and Control Practices in Codling Moth: A Review.

Martina Kadoić Balaško, Renata Bažok, Katarina M Mikac, Darija Lemic, Ivana Pajač Živković

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Dissipation study of ten insecticides in apples under field conditions.Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Control ofPeerJ · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The genome sequence of the acorn piercer,Wellcome open research · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Martina Kadoić BalaškoDepartment for Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska 25, Zagreb 10000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-3717-5301
Renata BažokDepartment for Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska 25, Zagreb 10000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0003-1655-8140
Katarina M MikacCentre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions, School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2522, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5779-7351
Darija LemicDepartment for Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska 25, Zagreb 10000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-1175-3716
Ivana Pajač ŽivkovićDepartment for Agricultural Zoology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska 25, Zagreb 10000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-0775-7327
University of Zagreb · HRUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

Croatian science foundation IP-2016-06-7458
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The codling moth,

Indexed as

anti-resistance programcodling mothcontrol strategiesgeneticsgeometric morphometricsresistance mechanismsSNPs

Identifiers

PMID31947812
PMCPMC7023282
OpenAlexW2998461951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.