Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15942788›Full record

ReviewPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2005

Clinical research in pediatric nephrology: state of the art.

Gregory H Gorman, Susan L Furth

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Gregory H GormanPediatric Nephrology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Park 335, Baltimore, MD 21287-2535, USA.
Susan L Furth

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goals of clinical research include comparing new and standard treatments, establishing treatment efficacy, defining risk factors for disease, elucidating pathophysiologic mechanisms of disease, and establishing causation. Although the randomized clinical trial has been the "gold standard" in clinical research and is the strongest study design to establish causation for many clinical research questions, an interventional study or "experiment" such as a randomized trial is often not possible. Observational study designs also demonstrate associations between exposures and outcome. To determine whether these associations are likely to be causal, one can assess a number of qualities, first outlined by the British epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill. These qualities include analogy to what is known; the plausibility, strength and specificity of the association; consistency and coherence across studies; the temporality of the putative cause and effect; and the presence of a biological gradient. The presence of these factors adds weight to the probability that a given association is causal. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses use these factors in combining studies to assess whether associations are cause and effect. Additionally, new methods in the analysis of longitudinal data collected in observational studies can help to determine causation. In this review, we will use recent literature and contemporary topics in pediatric nephrology to illustrate state-of-the-art research methods using classic epidemiological elements needed to establish causation.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchNephrologyPediatricsResearch DesignHumans

Identifiers

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.