ArticleEXCLI journal2025
Incomplete and mismatching descriptors of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and SEM microscopes: a case study.
Article in EXCLI journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The post-publication scrutiny of the literature occasionally reveals errors that have filtered past the scrutiny of peer reviewers and editors. Microscopes, as used in scanning electron microscopy (SEM), form an integral part of the evidence-based methodology of many biomedical studies. A 2025 preprint (DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/4wqcr) claimed that a body of literature in indexed and ranked journals may have published potentially incorrect microscopy (SEM)-based evidence, noting that in about 2400 cases, the model or maker of SEM microscopes, as indicated in the text (e.g., in the methodology section), do not match information indicated in the figures or micrographs. One possible explanation may be that those analyses and/or equipment may have been outsourced to third-party services, although the outsourcing was not declared. Homing in on a sub-set of that preprint's 2400 cases, looking specifically at 23 of the 94 papers published in the mega open access journal,
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.