The scandal of poor epidemiological research.

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

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

1. Hormone therapy and urine protein excretion: a multiracial cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.Menopause (New York, N.Y.) · 2018
   Pooled it
2. Ciprofloxacin resistance in community- and hospital-acquired Escherichia coli urinary tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.BMC infectious diseases · 2015
   Pooled it
3. Serrated polyps and the risk of synchronous colorectal advanced neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015
   Pooled it
4. Factors associated with functional capacity test results in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a systematic review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2011
   Pooled it
5. Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies: the GRIPS statement.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011
   Guideline
6. Strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies: the GRIPS Statement.PLoS medicine · 2011
   Guideline
7. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and myocardial infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2007
   Pooled it
8. A systematic review of the prevalence of schizophrenia.PLoS medicine · 2005
   Pooled it
9. The RIGHT Extension Statement for Traditional Chinese Medicine: Development, Recommendations, and Explanation.Pharmacological research · 2020
   Article
10. Better reporting quality for improved pediatric investigation: Application of health research reporting guidelines.Pediatric investigation · 2017
    Article
11. Potentially inappropriate medication use in nursing homes: an observational study using the NORGEP-NH criteria.BMC geriatrics · 2017
    Observational
12. Cancer and central nervous system disorders: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and updated meta-analyses of observational studies.Systematic reviews · 2017
    Article
13. Evaluation of the Endorsement of the STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA) Statement on the Reporting Quality of Published Genetic Association Studies.Journal of epidemiology · 2016
    Review
14. Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2015
    Review
15. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011
    Article
16. The scandal of unpublished research.Maternal & child nutrition · 2011
    Article
17. Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): explanation and elaboration.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011
    Article
18. Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies: the GRIPS statement.European journal of epidemiology · 2011
    Article
19. Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): explanation and elaboration.European journal of epidemiology · 2011
    Article
20. Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies: the GRIPS statement.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Issues in reporting epidemiological studies: no data are given to support generalisation.2005
• Comment on
  Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice.2004

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as