Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33024645›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

A comparison of sex, morphology, physiology and behavior of black-capped chickadees trapped using two common capture methods.

Sara M Burns, Frances Bonier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sara M BurnsDepartment of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Frances BonierDepartment of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7245-0244
Queen's University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many biological studies require the capture of individuals for sampling, for example for measurement of morphological or physiological traits, or for marking individuals for later observations. Capture methods employed often vary both within and between studies, and these differing methods could be more or less effective in capture of different individuals based on their morphology or behavior. If individuals that are prone to capture by the selected method differ with respect to traits of interest, such sampling bias could generate misleading or simply inaccurate results. The selection of capture methods could introduce two different forms of sampling bias, with the individuals that are sampled differing from the population at large or with individuals sampled via one method differing from individuals that could be sampled using a different method. We investigated this latter form of sampling bias by comparing individual birds sampled using two common capture techniques. We caught free-ranging black-capped chickadees (

Indexed as

Animal personalityCorticosteroneField biologyGlucocorticoidsNeophobiaOrnithologyRisk takingSampling biasTrapping methods

Identifiers

PMID33024645
PMCPMC7518160
OpenAlexW3088666843

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.