ArticleUltramicroscopy2020
Corrigendum to: "Relative merits and limiting factors for x-ray and electron microscopy of thick, hydrated organic materials" [Ultramicroscopy 184 (2018) 293-309].
Article in Ultramicroscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Upscaling X-ray nanoimaging to macroscopic specimens.Journal of applied crystallography · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During follow-on calculations, we found a few minor errors in our previous publication [Ultramicroscopy184, 293-309 (2018); doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2017.10.003]. We present here the necessary corrections. The full revised manuscript, with the corrected parts indicated in blue color text, is available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10069.
Indexed as
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.