[The GRADE system in taking clinical decisions and the elaboration of recommendations and clinical practice guidelines].

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

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

1. [Managing of the patient with dyspepsia. Clinical Practice Guideline. Update 2012].Atencion primaria · 2012
   Guideline
2. [Clinical practice guideline on the management of patients with dyspepsia. Update 2012].Atencion primaria · 2012
   Guideline
3. The methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using AMSTAR2.BMC medical research methodology · 2023
   Article
4. [Alveolar epithelial cell injury as an etiopathogenic factor in pulmonary fibrosis].Archivos de bronconeumologia · 2012
   Review
5. [semFYC also adopts the GRADE system].Atencion primaria · 2010
   Article

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as