Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20461119›Full record

ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2010

Principled versus statistical thinking in diagnosis and treatment of stroke.

Cathy M Helgason, Thomas H Jobe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Cathy M HelgasonDepartment of Neurology, University of Illinois College of Medicine, 912 South Wood Street, Room 855N Chicago, IL 60612 USA.
Thomas H Jobe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical science is now synonymous with probability-based statistics. Statistics deals with a group; it does not need probability theory. Probability theory is consistent with the worldview that the universe is infinite, bounded, random, and governed by chance. Its logic is binary, its geometry is Cartesian, its rules offer a scientific method by which hypotheses may be tested. Clinical trials and even hypothesis testing at the bedside have nestled into the probability foundation. As a result, scientific "evidence" now appears only through the lens of probability theory. Because there is no definitive truth in the worldview of probability theory, the truth of evidence lies in probabilities only. The probabilistic view of science has a firm impact on the practice of medicine and implications for medical-legal decisions.

Identifiers

PMID20461119
PMCPMC2860559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.