Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32987762›Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Nematode Identification Techniques and Recent Advances.

Mesfin Bogale, Anil Baniya, Peter DiGennaro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. First Report of Root-Knot Nematode,Journal of nematology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Mesfin BogaleDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Anil BaniyaDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Peter DiGennaroDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nematodes are among the most diverse but least studied organisms. The classic morphology-based identification has proved insufficient to the study of nematode identification and diversity, mainly for lack of sufficient morphological variations among closely related taxa. Different molecular methods have been used to supplement morphology-based methods and/or circumvent these problems with various degrees of success. These methods range from fingerprint to sequence analyses of DNA- and/or protein-based information. Image analyses techniques have also contributed towards this success. In this review, we highlight what each of these methods entail and provide examples where more recent advances of these techniques have been employed in nematode identification. Wherever possible, emphasis has been given to nematodes of agricultural significance. We show that these alternative methods have aided nematode identification and raised our understanding of nematode diversity and phylogeny. We discuss the pros and cons of these methods and conclude that no one method by itself provides all the answers; the choice of method depends on the question at hand, the nature of the samples, and the availability of resources.

Indexed as

DNA-based methodsimage analysismorphology-based methodsnematode identificationprotein-based methods

Identifiers

PMID32987762
PMCPMC7598616

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.