Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15649931›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005

Clustering by health professional in individually randomised trials.

Katherine J Lee, Simon G Thompson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. The Fremantle Primary Prevention Study: a multicentre randomised trial of absolute cardiovascular risk reduction.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Randomised controlled trial to compare GP-run orthopaedic clinics based in hospital outpatient departments and general practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

2 authors.

Katherine J LeeMRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge CB2 2SR. kjl27@cam.ac.uk
Simon G Thompson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisHealth PersonnelRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15649931
PMCPMC544437

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.