ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
Cardioprotective Activity of
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medicinal Plants in the Treatment of Myocardial Infarction Disease: A Systematic Review.Current cardiology reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Rhein Alleviates Doxorubicin-Induced Myocardial Injury by Inhibiting the p38 MAPK/HSP90/c-Jun/c-Fos Pathway-Mediated Apoptosis.Cardiovascular toxicology · 2024Article
- The Cardioprotective Effect of Corosolic Acid in the Diabetic Rats: A Possible Mechanism of the PPAR-γ Pathway.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Retracted: Cardioprotective Activity ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-12-13Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.