ArticlePeerJ2021
A new specimen of
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Azhdarchid pterosaur diversity in the Bayanshiree Formation, Upper Cretaceous of the Gobi Desert, Mongolia.PeerJ · 2025Article
- A taxonomic revision of thePeerJ · 2023Article
- A new wing skeleton of the Jehol tapejarid Sinopterus and its implications for ontogeny and paleoecology of the Tapejaridae.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Tapejarinae are edentulous pterosaurs that are relatively common in Cretaceous continental deposits in South America, North Africa, Europe, and China (mostly Early Cretaceous). The Chinese Jiufotang Formation is particularly rich in tapejarine specimens, having yielded over 10 described specimens and dozens of undescribed ones. For the Jiufotang Formation, a total of seven nominal tapejarid species and two genera have been proposed. Some debate exists over how many of those are valid or, alternatively, sexual or ontogenetic morphs of fewer (or even a single) species. Despite the abundance of specimens and the relevant taxonomic problems involved, detailed revisions of the matter are still lacking. This is partly due to the relatively scarce knowledge on the comparative osteology of the
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.