Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22065658›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011

Why do the results of randomised and observational studies differ?

Jan P Vandenbroucke

Abstract readEditorialComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prognostic variables and scores identifying the end of life in COPD: a systematic review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Meta-analysis shows clinically relevant and long-lasting deterioration in health-related quality of life after esophageal cancer surgery.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2014
    Pooled it
  4. Meta-analysis shows clinically relevant and long-lasting deterioration in health-related quality of life after esophageal cancer surgery.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The future of acute and emergency care.Future healthcare journal · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Digoxin and mortality: lessons for observational studies.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jan P Vandenbroucke

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

BiomarkersEpidemiologic StudiesObservationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCardiovascular DiseasesHumansBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID22065658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.