ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2005
[Classification of biomedical research reports as a reference for evidence-based medicine in ophthalmology. A survey considering as example the journal Der Ophthalmologe].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based medicine requires careful appraisal of published data derived from experimental and clinical studies. Based on classification of biomedical research reports, evidence levels can be determined and recommendations for therapeutic decisions can be made.
methodsA classification system for clinical studies was developed. It was evaluated in classifying the reports published in Der Ophthalmologe during 2003-2004 (study design: descriptive cross-sectional study, case series).
resultsIn the 2-year interval, 70 longitudinal and 95 cross-sectional studies were published. The vast majority of the longitudinal studies were interventional cohort studies. Not considering case reports, 73% of the original articles were longitudinal prospective studies, 1% were retrospective (case-control) studies, and 26% were cross-sectional studies.
conclusionsThe study design of all published articles could be classified using the classification system. This classification system proves to be applicable in the context of clinical studies in ophthalmology and may be helpful in the process of critical appraisal of the literature and synthesis of clinical evidence and an evidence-based recommendation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16283184What 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.