ReviewBritish journal of sports medicine2005
Reliable change assessment in sport concussion research: a comment on the proposal and reviews of Collie et al.
Review in British journal of sports medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring cognitive change in older adults: reliable change indices for the Mini-Mental State Examination.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2007Article
- Measuring cognitive change in older adults: reliable change indices for the SIDAM.Journal of neurology · 2007Article
- Reliable change assessment with practice effects in sport concussion research: a comment on Hinton-Bayre.British journal of sports medicine · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The proposal of Collie et al for determining reliable change in sports medicine and their review of other current procedures did not address mathematical or theoretical aspects. This article attempts to fill this lacuna, in order to examine the validity of their proposal and the suitability of their review. The conclusions drawn are that Collie et al presented their method too carelessly and their review of other methods leaves serious drawbacks and mistakes unnoticed. A scheme is here provided showing which of the current methods can be used in which situation.
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.