Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35571084›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2022

Using

Chenyin Wang, Chaogu Zheng

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. A Brief Review on Caenorhabditis elegans Role in Modelling Neurodegenerative Disease.Central nervous system agents in medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  7. International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Probiotic effects ofFrontiers in physiology · 2023
    Article
  12. Journal of traditional and complementary medicine · 2023
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chenyin WangSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Chaogu ZhengSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
University of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging evidence from both clinical studies and animal models indicates the importance of the interaction between the gut microbiome and the brain in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases (NDs). Although how microbes modulate neurodegeneration is still mostly unclear, recent studies have started to probe into the mechanisms for the communication between microbes and hosts in NDs. In this review, we highlight the advantages of using

Indexed as

Caenorhabditis eleganscsgA genecurli fibers biofilmdisease modelinggut microbiomemicrobe-host interactionneurodegenerative diseasesParkinson’s disease

Identifiers

PMID35571084
PMCPMC9096141
OpenAlexW4225011338

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.