Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33520164›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2021

A comparison of two methods for estimating measurement repeatability in morphometric studies.

Zachariah Wylde, Russell Bonduriansky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Zachariah WyldeEvolution and Ecology Research Centre School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney NSW Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6867-2338
Russell BondurianskyEvolution and Ecology Research Centre School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney NSW Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5786-6951

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement repeatability is often reported in morphometric studies as an index of the contribution of measurement error to trait measurements. However, the common method of remeasuring a mounted specimen fails to capture some components of measurement error and could therefore yield inflated repeatability estimates. Remounting specimens between successive measurements is likely to provide more realistic estimates of repeatability, particularly for structures that are difficult to measure.Using measurements of 22 somatic and genitalic traits of the neriid fly

Indexed as

allometrymeasurement errorphenotypeprecisionrepeatability

Identifiers

PMID33520164
PMCPMC7820162

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.