Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38994767›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular medicine2024

[Corrigendum] All‑

Jing Li, Qianying Li, Songmei Geng

Abstract readPublished Erratum
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jing LiDepartment of Dermatology, Northwest Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710004, P.R. China.
Qianying LiDepartment of Dermatology, Northwest Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710004, P.R. China.
Songmei GengDepartment of Dermatology, Northwest Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710004, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the publication of the above article, the authors contacted the Editorial Office to explain that they had identified a pair of duplicate images in the control (Vehicle) group of mouse images in Fig. 1A on p. 1792. Specifically, the same image (corresponding correctly to the 'Day 5' experiment) was inadvertently chosen to represent the cutaneous manifestations of mice in the Vehicle group on 'Day 3' and 'Day 5' in Fig. 1A. This error arose as a consequence of repetitive application and duplication procedures within the image set, resulting in the inadvertent reuse of the same photo. Additionally, due to minimal alterations observed in the skin condition of mice from the control group following treatment, each mouse exhibited a similar appearance; this similarity further contributed to the delayed identification of this error during the paper revision stage. Consequently, this duplication of the same image was made as a result of insufficient scrutiny. The revised version of Fig. 1, showing the correct image for the 'Day 3' experiment in Fig. 1A, is shown on the next page. The authors can confirm that the error associated with the assembly of this figure did not have any significant impact on either the results or the conclusions reported in this study, and all the authors agree with the publication of this Corrigendum. The authors are grateful to the Editor of

Indexed as

ATRAbarrier functionclaudin-1claudin-4skin irritationTJ

Identifiers

PMID38994767
PMCPMC11254101

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.