Assessing the ability to work.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A clinically integrated post-graduate training programme in evidence-based medicine versus 'no intervention' for improving disability evaluations: a cluster randomised clinical trial.PloS one · 2013
   Trial
2. Breath-taking jobs: a case-control study of respiratory work disability by occupation in Norway.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2016
   Article
3. Evidence-based guidelines in the evaluation of work disability: an international survey and a comparison of quality of development.BMC public health · 2009
   Article
4. Assessing the ability to work: How helpful is disability label?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2008
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Assessing the ability to work: How helpful is disability label?2008

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as