ReviewArchives of disease in childhood2006
Highlights in asthma 2005.
Review in Archives of disease in childhood, 2006. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is usual at the end of a year for top tens to feature large in our collective consciousness. These inevitably include the occasional controversial selection and without fail will overlook a number of gems, whether in the field of literature, art, or science. The approaches to such compilations include personal selections, convening expert committees through to letting the market decide. However, it is well recognised that experts can be wrong and markets distorted. A novel approach to identifying the key publications in the field of medicine, Faculty of 1000 Medicine (http://www.f1000medicine.com), uses faculty evaluations to assign ratings to published papers within topics and categories, bringing a flavour of the dynamism of post hoc peer review to biological sciences that exists in other fields of scholarship. Archives of Disease in Childhood has also developed a market led system of peer evaluation through its web based top ten most read articles feature.
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.