TREND: an important step, but not enough.

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.

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.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Impact of the transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs reporting guideline: ten years on.American journal of public health · 2014
   Article
2. The Oxford Implementation Index: a new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2013
   Article
3. Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines.BMJ open · 2012
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement.2004

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as