ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2005
Methodology for constructing guidance.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of elicited expert information via a power prior in Bayesian variable selection: Application to colon cancer data.Statistical methods in medical research · 2020Article
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 10.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 9.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 8.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 7.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 6.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 5.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- When is "abnormal" abnormal? Dealing with the slightly out of range laboratory result.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Article
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 4.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 3.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- Testing pitfalls and summary of guidance in lipid management.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 2.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- Best practice in primary care pathology: review 1.Journal of clinical pathology · 2005Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although guidance exists for the use of many laboratory tests in a wide range of clinical situations, this guidance is spread among a range of literature sources, and is often directed at laboratory specialists rather than test users. Individual general practices display large variations in standardised test requesting, yet much of their testing activity involves a relatively small range of tests. This paper describes a methodological approach to review the available evidence and guidance and to extract relevant primary research work to examine a range of testing scenarios in general practice, with the aim of formulating guidance based on the best available evidence or consensus opinions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.