ArticleBiology2022
Use of
Article in Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The qualitative trials were conducted by exposing earthworms to diverse contaminants sources using standard earthworms’ avoidance tests (considered useful ab initio indicators). For two years, we observed the Jiu River pollution points. We observed soil traits in 15 sampling points from two neighboring Romanian counties where Jiu River flows, by evaluating the risk of pollution on Eisenia fetida earthworms. The ISO: 11268-2:2015 acute static test was used, following the ethological and bodily features of E. fetida earthworms for 14 days, and then the results obtained for clean soils vs. those presumed polluted were statistically analyzed. Results disclosed statistically significant values (p < 0.05) for the two-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons tests used for the soil samples thought to be polluted. The mortality percentages by location/replica/year/county find out a high statistical correlation documenting observations related to soil samples gathered from 10 m (p < 0.01) and 30 m (p < 0.001). Compared with the control, the statistical analysis of Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (p < 0.05) and Specific Growth Rate (SGR) (p < 0.01) confirmed that, in the case of soil samples collected from 10 and 30 m from the Jiu River’s axis, the earthworms did not gain weight, qualitatively attesting the pollution suspicion/presence of chemical factors potentially pernicious for earthworms.
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.