An unbiased scientific record should be everyone's agenda.

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.

1. A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.BMC medical ethics · 2025
   Review
2. Status, Respect, and Stigma: A Qualitative Study of Non-financial Interests in Medicine.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020
   Article
3. Declaration of transparency for each research article.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013
   Article
4. Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin.PLoS medicine · 2013
   Article
5. Ghostwriting: the dirty little secret of medical publishing that just got bigger.PLoS medicine · 2009
   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

0 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as