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 🤔
| Emoji | Study type/tag |
|---|---|
| 👫 | human studies |
| 🐶 | dog studies |
| 🐵 | monkey studies |
| 🐀 | mice/rat studies |
| 🐇 | rabbit studies |
| 🦠 | bacteria/microorganism studies |
| 🧫 | in vitro/cell studies |
| 🖥 | in silico studies |
| 🕸 | meta-reviews and reviews |
| 🤔 | theoretical studies |
| 🧬 | biotech studies |
| 💉 | therapy studies |
| 💊 | drug/pharma studies |
| ⚖ | 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 [👫💊🕸]
[n] Cipriani, A....Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant... The Lancet 391, 1357–1366.. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32802-7 [👫💊🕸]
Please create a pull request and/or drop me a message @baldr (Telegram)