ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024
The
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid antidepressant potential of nitrous oxide: current state and major questions.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- NMDA receptors are not necessary for burst firing of lateral habenula neurons in mice.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- NMDA receptor antagonist induced c-Fos expression in the medial entorhinal cortex during postnatal development.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2025Article
- Beyond NMDA Receptors: A Narrative Review of Ketamine's Rapid and Multifaceted Mechanisms in Depression Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Long-term potentiation: 50 years on: past, present and future.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Substantial clinical evidence has unravelled the superior antidepressant efficacy of ketamine: in comparison to traditional antidepressants targeting the monoamine systems, ketamine, as an
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.