Exploring genomic diversity in

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.

1. Alternative Methods for Testing Botulinum Toxin: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2020
   Review
2. Botulinum Neurotoxin Detection Methods for Public Health Response and Surveillance.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2018
   Review
3. Identification and genetic characterization of Clostridium botulinum serotype A strains from commercially pasteurized carrot juice.Food microbiology · 2014
   Article
4. Clostridium botulinum strains producing BoNT/F4 or BoNT/F5.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2014
   Article
5. Analysis of a unique Clostridium botulinum strain from the Southern hemisphere producing a novel type E botulinum neurotoxin subtype.BMC microbiology · 2012
   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

1 author.

Funding

Abstract

Indexed as