Search every field
Partial results: at least one source did not answer. Available results are shown rather than treating an upstream outage as zero matches.
Source status
- crossref
- europe-pmc
- datacite
- pubmed
- doaj
- zenodo
- hal
- arxiv
- doab
Insecticidal gel bait formulations against the poultry litter beetle, Alphitobius diaperinus: integrating toxicological and behavioral analyses.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Isolated Native Aortic Regurgitation: National Propensity-Matched Analysis.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Comparative performance of experienced general surgeons and large language models in inguinal hernia management: A domain-based benchmarking study.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Multicenter retrospective study on the efficacy of reconstruction using a polished taper cemented stem for periprosthetic femoral fractures following total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation by anaesthesia resident doctors (VILARE): a pragmatic multicentre randomised trial.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Global Trends and Exposure Profiling of Early-Onset Type 2 Diabetes: An Ecological Analysis Using Machine Learning.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Screening for Nutritional Risk in Adults Receiving Obesity Treatment: A Systematic Literature Review of Available Tools and Identification of Conceptual Gaps.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Diabetic Ketoacidosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Safety, Accuracy, Empathy, Information Quality, and Readability of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Health Advice Generated by 6 Large Language Models: Cross-Sectional Comparative Evaluation Study.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
A meso-level approach to quality improvement: a qualitative rapid evaluation of the role of integrated care boards in improving access to general practice in England.
limited evidence
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.