SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2006
Methodological aspects of outcomes research.
Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of suicidal behaviour in adolescents and youth at ultra-high risk for psychosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness and safety of everolimus treatment in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex in real-world clinical practice.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Trial
- 20-MHz high-intensity focused ultrasound for seborrheic keratoses of the head and neck: outcomes and dermoscopic predictors.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Global Post-Outbreak COVID-19 Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Review
- Effects of Herbal Mouthwashes on Plaque and Inflammation Control for Patients with Gingivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Review
- Does case misclassification threaten the validity of studies investigating the relationship between neck manipulation and vertebral artery dissection stroke? No.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2016Article
- Risk factors for gastroenteritis in child day care.Epidemiology and infection · 2015Article
- Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: what does it mean for the chiropractic profession?Chiropractic & osteopathy · 2010Article
- Cervical spondylosis with spinal cord encroachment: should preventive surgery be recommended?Chiropractic & osteopathy · 2009Article
- Pain regulation and health-related quality of life after thoracolumbar fractures of the spine.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007Article
- A survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2006.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A critical evaluation of existing scientific evidence of treatment efficacy can be an important part of communicating risk and benefits of treatment options to patients during the course of clinical practice. A checklist of key methodological issues to examine when reading a research study is presented and discussed. Steps in reading a paper include: identifying the research question; identifying the manner in which subjects get enrolled in the study; identifying the treatments and outcomes used; identifying the study design and the comparisons being made; evaluating the study methods for the possibility of bias and uncontrolled confounding; assessing whether the statistical analysis used is appropriate for the study design; assessing whether the study has sufficient statistical power to demonstrate hypotheses being tested. Finally, procedures for grading and evaluating evidence, as used by systematic review groups and international best evidence synthesis consensus groups is briefly described.
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.