Pseudonocardia phyllosphaerae sp. nov., a Novel Actinomycete Isolated from Phylloplane of Rhizophora apiculata Blume.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Evaluation of Taxonomic Positions of Robertmurraya yapensis Hitch et al. 2025, Bacillus yapensis Xu et al. 2025, Pseudonocardia saturnea (Hirsch 1960) Warwick et al. 1994 and Pseudonocardia autotrophica (Takamiya and Tubaki 1956) Warwick et al. 1994.Current microbiology · 2026
   Article
2. Validation List no. 227: valid publication of new names and new combinations effectively published outside theInternational journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2026
   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

5 authors.

Funding

Abstract

Indexed as