Cited by 6Gastrointestinal motility and disordersProbiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and health

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Probiotics and constipation: mechanisms of action, evidence for effectiveness and utilisation by patients and healthcare professionals – ERRATUM

Open access
Dimidi, Eirini, Mark Scott, S., Whelan, Kevin·2020·Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0029665119001058

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dimidi, 2019, Probiotics and constipation: Mechanisms of action, evidence for effectiveness and utilisation by patients and healthcare professionals, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dimidi, E., Mark Scott, S., & Whelan, K.
Venue
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Published
2019-08-01
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
170-170
ISSN
  • 0029-6651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2719
OpenAlex
W4256001761
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings of The Nutrition Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
probiotics, constipation, mechanism of action, treatment effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review