Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34917993›Full record

ReviewCurrent research in microbial sciences2021

Stuti Sah, Shweena Krishnani, Rajni Singh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current research in microbial sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Unlocking the power ofmSystems · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Whole-genome sequencing and characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Stuti SahAmity Institute of Microbial Technology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Sector 125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301, India.
Shweena KrishnaniAmity Institute of Microbial Technology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Sector 125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301, India.
Rajni SinghAmity Institute of Microbial Technology, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Sector 125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous microbial communities show synergistic and antagonistic interactions among themselves, resulting in benefit and harm to either or both the associated members. The association holds accountability for nutrients recycling and energy drift, resulting in the availability of macronutrients unavailable and insoluble forms of rhizospheric nutrients, crucial for vital processes in plants, e.g., act as co-factors of various phyto-enzyme and redox mediators. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria are known to enhance plant growth by increasing these macronutrients availability during their plant root colonization. In comparison to any other genera,

Indexed as

Disease managementInduced systemic resistance (ISR)PhenazinesPlant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)PseudomonasSiderophores

Identifiers

PMID34917993
PMCPMC8645841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.