Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33505403›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2020

José María Gutiérrez, Mariángela Vargas, Álvaro Segura, María Herrera, Mauren Villalta, Gabriela Solano, Andrés Sánchez, Cristina Herrera, Guillermo León

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. BrazilianToxins · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Assessment of theToxicon: X · 2024
    Article
  10. ImprovingF1000Research · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Towards better antivenoms: navigating the road to new types of snakebite envenoming therapies.The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

José María GutiérrezInstituto Clodomiro Picado, Facultad de Microbiología, San José, Costa Rica.
Mariángela VargasInstituto Clodomiro Picado, Facultad de Microbiología, San José, Costa Rica.
Álvaro SeguraInstituto Clodomiro Picado, Facultad de Microbiología, San José, Costa Rica.
María HerreraInstituto Clodomiro Picado, Facultad de Microbiología, San José, Costa Rica.
Mauren VillaltaInstituto Clodomiro Picado, Facultad de Microbiología, San José, Costa Rica.
Gabriela SolanoInstituto Clodomiro Picado, Facultad de Microbiología, San José, Costa Rica.
Andrés SánchezInstituto Clodomiro Picado, Facultad de Microbiología, San José, Costa Rica.
Cristina HerreraFacultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.
Guillermo LeónInstituto Clodomiro Picado, Facultad de Microbiología, San José, Costa Rica.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an urgent need to strengthen the implementation of the 3Rs principle (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) in the use of experimental animals in toxinological research and in the assessment of the neutralizing efficacy of snake antivenoms. This is a challenging task owing to the inherent complexity of snake venoms. The state of the art on this topic is hereby reviewed, with emphasis on the studies in which a correlation has been observed between

Indexed as

AnimalsAntiveninsHumansIn Vitro TechniquesNeutralization TestsSnake VenomsAntiveninsSnake Venoms3Rsanalgesiaantivenomsin vitro assayslethality assaysneutralizationsnake venoms

Identifiers

PMID33505403
PMCPMC7829219

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.