Characterization and In Vitro Fungicide Sensitivity of Two

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. MdUGT88F1 enhances plant resistance to Fusarium proliferatum f.sp. malus domestica MR5 via root exudate-mediated assembly of disease-suppressive rhizosphere microbiota.Microbiome · 2026
   Article
2. Diversity, Pathogenicity, and Biological Characteristics of Root Rot Pathogens fromJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Article
3. Comparison of Culture-Dependent and Culture-Independent Methods for Routine Identification of Airborne Microorganisms in Speleotherapeutic Caves.Microorganisms · 2024
   Article
4. Morpho-phylogenetic identification and characterization of new causal agents ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024
   Article

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.

Funding

Abstract

Indexed as