Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16864563›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of sports medicine2006

EULAR recommendations for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a critique of the methodology.

W Zhang, M Doherty

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of sports medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

W ZhangUniversity of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.
M Doherty

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality of the EULAR recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) was evaluated using a validated instrument. The quality and methods were compared with other guidelines and recommendations. EULAR recommendations were found to be among the best for overall quality. They show strengths with respect to scope, rigour of development, and clarity, but weaknesses with respect to stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence. However, a principal strength is their attempt to fill the gap between guidelines based solely on either research evidence or expert opinion. The methods used to synthesise research evidence (systematic review) and expert opinion (Delphi exercise) are robust. Strength of recommendation, based on combined consideration of research evidence, clinical expertise, and perceived patient preference, is valid and approaches the true essence of "evidence based practice" that considers each of these different forms of evidence.

Indexed as

Health Planning GuidelinesHumansOsteoarthritis, HipOsteoarthritis, KneePractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID16864563
PMCPMC2579446

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.