Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18177203›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2008

In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter.

Gordon H Guyatt, Edward J Mills, Diana Elbourne

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The response of Canada's clinical health research ecosystem to the COVID-19 pandemic.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. In reply: Comment on: The fragility index of randomized controlled trials in pediatric anesthesiology.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Randomised Controlled Trials in Diabetes Research: A Pathway to Interpreting Published Results.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. guyatt@mcmaster.ca
Edward J Mills
Diana Elbourne

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background to the debateSystematic reviews that combine high-quality evidence from several trials are now widely considered to be at the top of the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Given the primacy of systematic reviews-and the fact that individual clinical trials rarely provide definitive answers to a clinical research question-some commentators question whether the sample size calculation for an individual trial still matters. Others point out that small trials can still be potentially misleading.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicReview Literature as TopicSample SizeData Interpretation, StatisticalHumans

Identifiers

PMID18177203
PMCPMC2174963

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.