Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41486981›Full record

ArticleNeonatology2026

Erratum.

Abstract readPublished Erratum
In one paragraph

Article in Neonatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

0 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the article "No Short-Term Effect of Low-Dose Nicotine on Inflammation after Global Hypoxia in Newborn Piglets" [Neonatology. 2025;122:171-180; https://doi.org/10.1159/000541217] by Volstad et al., the following corrections to the legend of Table 1 should be observed.The sentence "Statistically significant differences (<0.05) are highlighted in bold" has been removed as these differences are indicated using superscript letters (a-d).Superscript letter c incorrectly read "Significant lower pH in control versus LN group (p = 0.041)" and should correctly read "Significant lower pH in control versus HN group (p = 0.041)."Superscript letter d incorrectly read "Significant lower pH in HN versus LN group (p = 0.040)" and should correctly read "Significant lower lactate in HN versus LN group (p = 0.040)."The original article has been updated to reflect the above.

Identifiers

PMID41486981
PMCPMC12885503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.