Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17699171›Full record

ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2007

Consent bias in research: how to avoid it.

Cornelia Junghans, Melvyn Jones

Abstract readCommentEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Learning Head and Neck Anatomy Through a Radiological Imaging Platform.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2022
    Article
  16. Internet Addiction and Sleep Problems among Russian Adolescents: A Field School-Based Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Pragmatic Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis.Current osteoporosis reports · 2019
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cornelia Junghans
Melvyn Jones

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentPatient SelectionSelection BiasBiomedical ResearchEthics Committees, ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID17699171
PMCPMC1955004

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.