Open Medicine's ghost and guest authorship policy.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.BMJ open · 2014
   Pooled it
2. Open Medicine at five years.Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal · 2012
   Article
3. Knowledge of ghostwriting and financial conflicts-of-interest reduces the perceived credibility of biomedical research.BMC research notes · 2011
   Article
4. Guest authorship: the practice of author pooling.Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal · 2010
   Article
5. Opening Pandora's box: the public declaration of competing interests.Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal · 2010
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.