ArticleIranian journal of parasitology
Molecular Evidence of
Article in Iranian journal of parasitology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding zoonotic pathogens and risk factors from wildlife in Southeast Asia: a systematic literature review.The veterinary quarterly · 2025Pooled it
- Isolation and phylogenetic characterization ofOpen veterinary journal · 2026Article
- Protozoan Parasites ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe genus
methodsOverall, 54 fecal samples of various snake species and four fecal samples of several lizard species in Malaysia were taken within the course of August 2015 to January 2016 from Seremban, Melaka, Tioman Island, Pahang, Klang and Langkawi Wildlife Park located in Malaysia. The samples were examined for
resultsFourteen snake fecal samples were positive via PCR; however, only eight samples (14%) were found positive for
conclusionThis is the first report of identification of
Indexed as
Identifiers
32099565PMC7028226W2997109582What 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.