Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11312237›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2001

Interpreting the results of secondary end points and subgroup analyses in clinical trials: should we lock the crazy aunt in the attic?

N Freemantle

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Interventions to improve return to work in depressed people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2002
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Predicting who will benefit from an Expert Patients Programme self-management course.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008
    Trial
  17. Cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of primary care mental health workers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

N FreemantleDepartment of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. N.Freemande@gham.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Treatment OutcomeHumansProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID11312237
PMCPMC1120143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.