ArticleJournal of travel medicine2025
Revisiting the efficacy of bismuth subsalicylate for the prevention of traveller's diarrhoea.
Article in Journal of travel medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Author's response to concerns by Gibb, et al. on 'Efficacy of Bismuth Subsalicylate on the Prevention of Travelers' Diarrhea'.Journal of travel medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
What can be concluded from a clinical trial that spanned 5 years yet failed to achieve target enrollment, generated flat results that contradict the existing body of knowledge and has a primary efficacy endpoint confounded by a treatment-by-COVID interaction? Could it be a false negative finding?
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.