ArticleSurgical endoscopy2011
A review for clinical outcomes research: hypothesis generation, data strategy, and hypothesis-driven statistical analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical research using national databases.Annals of translational medicine · 2016Review
- Patient-reported outcomes of parenteral somatostatin analogue injections in 195 patients with acromegaly.European journal of endocrinology · 2016Observational
- Working with existing databases.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, more and more large, population-level databases have become available for clinical research. The size and complexity of these databases often present a methodological challenge for investigators. We propose that a "protocol" may facilitate the research process using these databases. In addition, much like the structured History and Physical (H&P) helps the audience appreciate the details of a patient case more systematically, a formal outcomes research protocol can also help in the systematic evaluation of an outcomes research manuscript.
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.