ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2011
[The work of the Cochrane Collaboration in urology].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Cochrane Collaboration collects medical information from clinical trials and presents the results as systematic reviews. The aim of these evidence-based publications is to enable medical decisions which are based on the best available evidence and to improve knowledge transfer in healthcare decisions. Accurately developed systematic reviews identify relevant clinical trials, evaluate their quality, abstract the results and are being published in an increasing frequency in professional urological journals. The Cochrane Library provides, with diverse databases, a quick overview of the best available evidence in urology. The quality of systematic reviews depends on the quality of the included studies. A checklist provided by the PRISMA statement could help authors and thereby readers to improve methodology and recommendations in evidence-based urology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21290095What 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.