ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2010
Invited commentary: Evaluating epidemiologic research methods--the importance of response rate calculation.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The sensitivity and specificity of using the McGill pain subscale for diagnosing neuropathic and non-neuropathic chronic pain in the total joint arthroplasty population.Archives of physiotherapy · 2023Article
- Participation rates, response bias and response behaviours in the community survey of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study (SwiSCI).BMC medical research methodology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidemiologic research that uses administrative records (rather than registries or clinical surveys) to identify cases for study has been increasingly restricted because of concerns about privacy, making unbiased population-based research less practicable. In their article, Nattinger et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(6):637-644) present a method for using administrative data to contact participants that has been well received. However, the methods employed for calculating and reporting response rates require further consideration, particularly the classification of untraceable cases as ineligible. Depending on whether response rates are used to evaluate the potential for bias to influence study results or to evaluate the acceptability of the method of contact, different fractions may be considered. To improve the future study of epidemiologic research methods, a consensus on the calculation and reporting of study response rates should be sought.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20660120What 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.