Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15717036›Full record

ReviewNeuroRx : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2004

Observational versus experimental studies: what's the evidence for a hierarchy?

John Concato

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in NeuroRx : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 5 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Landscape analysis of oncology nutrition research among patients being treated for cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational evidence in support of screening for depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

1 author.

John ConcatoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06510, USA. john.concato@yale.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The tenets of evidence-based medicine include an emphasis on hierarchies of research design (i.e., study architecture). Often, a single randomized, controlled trial is considered to provide "truth," whereas results from any observational study are viewed with suspicion. This paper describes information that contradicts and discourages such a rigid approach to evaluating the quality of research design. Unless a more balanced strategy evolves, new claims of methodological authority may be just as problematic as the traditional claims of medical authority that have been criticized by proponents of evidence-based medicine.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineObservationResearch DesignCase-Control StudiesClinical Trials as TopicCohort StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15717036
PMCPMC534936

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.