Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18479180›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2008

Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions.

David I Shalowitz, Franklin G Miller

Abstract read
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 133 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

133 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recommendations for the return of research results to study participants and guardians: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2012
    Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Disclosure of research results: a randomized study on GENEPSO-PS cohort participants.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Closing the Feedback Loop: Improving Communication of Findings With Aboriginal Research Participants Through Participatory Action Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

73 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

David I ShalowitzBioethics Program, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America. dshalowi@med.umich
Franklin G Miller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Ethics, InstitutionalEthics, ResearchOrganizational PolicyPatient ParticipationAttitudeBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicDisclosureEthics Committees, ResearchFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMalePregnancy

Identifiers

PMID18479180
PMCPMC2375946

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.