ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2008
Checklists to improve the quality of the orthopaedic literature.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Magnitude and associated factors of postpartum family planning uptake among postpartum women in Ethiopia: an umbrella review.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Magnitude and associated factors of unmet need for family planning among reproductive-aged women in Ethiopia: An umbrella review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Pilot randomized controlled trials in the orthopaedic surgery literature: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2018Pooled it
- Displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle: non-operative treatment versus plate fixation (Sleutel-TRIAL). A multicentre randomised controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2011Trial
- Preliminary Checklist for Reporting Observational Studies in Sports Areas: Content Validity.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of meta-analyses of observational studies published in Chinese journals.BMJ open · 2015Article
- What are the levels of evidence on which we base decisions for surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2014Review
- The 3-min appraisal of a diagnostic test.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2011Article
- The three-minute appraisal of a randomized trial.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2011Article
- Prospective Non-randomized Studies in Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Systematic Assessment of its Methodological Quality.Revista brasileira de ortopediaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several checklists have been developed in an effort to help journals and researchers improve the quality of reporting in research. The CONSORT statement and the CLEAR NPT evaluate randomized trials. The MOOSE and QUOROM checklists evaluate meta-analyses. The STROBE checklists assists readers in evaluating observational studies and the STARD checklist was developed for diagnostic test evaluation. The checklists presented here provide an invaluable source of guidance to authors, journal editors and readers who are seeking to prepare and evaluate reports. As evidence-based medicine continues to establish itself as the new paradigm by which medicine is practiced, the need for good reporting for all research designs must also become commonplace as opposed to the exception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.