Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34434646›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Using

Jake J Ponce, Ivan Arismendi, Austen Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Jake J PonceDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America.
Ivan ArismendiDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America.
Austen ThomasMolecular Division, Smith-Root, Inc., Vancouver, WA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection of aquatic invasive species is currently at the forefront of aquatic conservation efforts because the methodology provides a cost effective and sensitive means to detect animals at low densities. Developments in eDNA technologies have improved detection probabilities for rare, indicator, and invasive species over the past decade. However, standard lab analysis can take days or weeks before results are available and is prohibitive when rapid management decisions are required for mitigation. Here, we investigated the performance of a real-time quantitative PCR system for on-site eDNA detection of New Zealand mud snails (

Indexed as

Biological invasionsEnvironmental DNAMolecular ecologyNon-native snails

Identifiers

PMID34434646
PMCPMC8359795

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.