Correction: Fang et al. In Vivo Rodent Models of Type 2 Diabetes and Their Usefulness for Evaluating Flavonoid Bioactivity.

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. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Pathogenic Features and Experimental Models in Rodents.Acta naturae
   Article
2. A Longitudinal Dose-Response Curve Between Leisure-Time Physical Activity and the Prevalence of Diabetes Based on the Different Levels of Cognitive Function Among Older Adults.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  In Vivo Rodent Models of Type 2 Diabetes and Their Usefulness for Evaluating Flavonoid Bioactivity.2019

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.