Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39027532›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Integrating

Anthony Emaru, Jane G Nyaanga, Mwanarusi Saidi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anthony EmaruDepartment of Crop, Horticulture and Soil (CHS), Faculty of Agriculture, Egerton University, P.O Box, 536-20115, Njoro, Nakuru, Kenya.
Jane G NyaangaDepartment of Crop, Horticulture and Soil (CHS), Faculty of Agriculture, Egerton University, P.O Box, 536-20115, Njoro, Nakuru, Kenya.
Mwanarusi SaidiDepartment of Crop, Horticulture and Soil (CHS), Faculty of Agriculture, Egerton University, P.O Box, 536-20115, Njoro, Nakuru, Kenya.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

French bean growers, rely mainly on pesticides for pest management. The acceptable tolerance for pesticides residue in French beans is a major concern and has led to several tonnes of the crop continuously rejected and listed as unsafe for human consumption. There is growing demand for alternative approaches and products that are effective at managing pests without the side-effects associated with reliance on pesticides. A field study to determine the combined effects of Metarhizium anisopliae, (Metarril WP E9 and Biomagic) biopesticides and border crops (Sunflower and wheat) on aphid population, damage severity, growth, yield and quality of French bean. A two-factor experiment was conducted at the Egerton University, Kenya. First factor included two border crops (sunflower and wheat) and no border crop (control). Second factor included spraying Metarril WPE9 (2 × 10

Indexed as

Border croppingMetarhiziumMetarrilSunflowerWheat

Identifiers

PMID39027532
PMCPMC11255571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.