That's quite simple:
- I've seen lots of Pubmed-based chat rants and wars
- Sometimes it's hard to keep track of'em
- It'll (I hope) save time and cognitive resources on scale if used, being subject to Metcalfe's law π€
Emoji | Study type/tag |
---|---|
π« | human studies |
πΆ | dog studies |
π΅β | monkey studies |
π | mice/rat studies |
πβ | rabbit studies |
π¦ β | bacteria/microorganism studies |
𧫠| in vitro/cell studies |
π₯β | in silico studies |
πΈβ | meta-reviews and reviews |
π€ | theoretical studies |
π§¬β | biotech studies |
πβ | therapy studies |
πβ | drug/pharma studies |
β | control group studies |
So, here's Cipriani meta-analysis of antidepressant effifacy: [this place is reserved for the reference number] https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(17)32802-7.pdf [π«ππΈ]
[n] Cipriani, A....Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant... The Lancet 391, 1357β1366.. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32802-7 [π«ππΈ]
Please create a pull request and/or drop me a message @baldr (Telegram)