Correction to: Comprehensive genetic analyses using targeted next-generation sequencing and genotype-phenotype correlations in 53 Japanese patients with osteogenesis imperfecta.

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. Scoliosis in osteogenesis imperfecta: identifying the genetic and non-genetic factors affecting severity and progression from longitudinal data of 290 patients.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023
   Article
2. Association of trabecular bone score and bone mineral apparent density with the severity of bone fragility in children and adolescents with osteogenesis imperfecta: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Comprehensive genetic analyses using targeted next-generation sequencing and genotype-phenotype correlations in 53 Japanese patients with osteogenesis imperfecta.2019

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract