ArticleMolecular medicine reports2020
[Corrigendum] Pro‑neurogenic effects of andrographolide on RSC96 Schwann cells in vitro.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the publication of the above article, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that a pair of the data panels shown in Fig. 4 contained overlapping data. After having consulted their original data, the authors realized that a total of three panels featured in Figs. 4 and 6 had been erroneously selected. The image of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining for RSC96 Schwann cells in the 1.5625 µM andrographolide for 6 days data panel in Fig. 4 (bottom row, second panel from the left) was mistakenly submitted. In addition, in Fig. 6, the images of immunohistochemical staining for RSC96 Schwann cells in the 3.125 µM for 4 days panel (middle row, second panel from the right) and the 6.25 µM for 6 days panel (bottom row, furthest panel on the right) were mistakenly submitted. The corrected versions of Figs. 4 and 6 are shown opposite. These corrections were approved by all authors. The authors regret that these errors were featured in the paper, even though they did not substantially alter any of the major conclusions reported in the study. Morever, the authors apologize to the Editor of Molecular Medicine Reports and to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [the original article was published in Molecular Medicine Reports 14: 3573‑3580, 2016; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2016.5717].
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.