ReviewCritical care (London, England)2006
Evidence-based medicine: classifying the evidence from clinical trials--the need to consider other dimensions.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Strategies to reach, involve, and maintain underserved populations in health intervention research: a systematic review of reviews.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Trials in Central Venous Access Devices: An Evidence and Gap Map.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Medium-Term Weight Loss and Remission of Comorbidities Following Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obesity surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Self-medication of migraine and tension-type headache: summary of the evidence-based recommendations of the Deutsche Migräne und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft (DMKG), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (DGN), the Österreichische Kopfschmerzgesellschaft (ÖKSG) and the Schweizerische Kopfwehgesellschaft (SKG).The journal of headache and pain · 2011Guideline
- Results of Use of Tissue-Engineered Autologous Oral Mucosa Graft for Urethral Reconstruction: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Trial.EBioMedicine · 2017Trial
- Knowledge and perception of a clinical trial among the participants: An experience from oral cholera vaccine study in Koshi Province, Nepal.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Retrieval augmented scientific claim verification.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- How to Measure Human-Dog Interaction in Dog Assisted Interventions? A Scoping Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- How Good Is ChatGPT for Medication Evidence Synthesis?Studies in health technology and informatics · 2023Article
- Electroconvulsive therapy for treating patients with agitation and related behavioral disorders due to dementia: a systematic review.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2023Article
- Personalized Dosimetry in the Context of Radioiodine Therapy for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Mapping multicenter randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Radon Exposure-Therapeutic Effect and Cancer Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Nutrition in times of Covid-19, how to trust the deluge of scientific information.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2020Review
- Consequences of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in adulthood. Scoping Review.Revista de saude publica · 2020Article
- The Contribution of Motor Changes to Oral Mucositis in Pediatric Cancer Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Observational
- Evaluating clinical stop-smoking services globally: towards a minimum data set.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2018Article
- Patient-reported symptoms and changes up to 1 year after meniscal surgery.Acta orthopaedica · 2018Observational
- Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No.Intensive care medicine · 2018Article
- Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
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
The current approach to assessing the quality of evidence obtained from clinical trials focuses on three dimensions: the quality of the design (with double-blinded randomised controlled trials representing the highest level of such design); the statistical power (beta) and the level of significance (alpha). While these aspects are important, we argue that other significant aspects of trial quality impinge upon the truthfulness of the findings: biological plausibility, reproducibility and generalisability. We present several recent studies in critical care medicine where the design, beta and alpha components of the study are seemingly satisfactory but where the aspects of biological plausibility, reproducibility and generalisability show serious limitations. Accordingly, we argue for more reflection, definition and consensus on these aspects of the evaluation of evidence.
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.