ArticleVeterinary world2021
Comparison of polymerase chain reaction and microscopy for the detection of
Article in Veterinary world, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fasciola spp. in Southeast Asia: A systematic review.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Molecular prevalence and phylogenetic characterization ofVeterinary world · 2026Article
- Morphological identification and phylogenetic analysis of Eimeria coypi and Eimeria fluviatilis (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) isolated from nutrias (Myocastor coypus [Rodentia]) in Japan.Systematic parasitology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimMATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was conducted in Kalasin Province, Thailand. Feces of 46 cattle were investigated for infection with
resultsFeces of 16 of 46 (34.78%) cattle were positive for
conclusionThis study confirmed the infection of cattle with
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.