ArticleStatistics in medicine2012
Comparative effectiveness research: does one size fit all?
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the generalizability of a large streamlined cardiovascular trial: comparing hospitals and patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy study versus the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2015Trial
- Well-designed retrospective study versus small-sample prospective study in research based on laparoscopic and open radical distal gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Risk of hospitalised bleeding in comparisons of oral anticoagulant options for the primary treatment of venous thromboembolism.British journal of haematology · 2019Article
- All-Cause Mortality Risk with Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in the Primary Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this commentary, we argue that although randomization has many benefits, not all questions we seek to answer fit into a randomized setting. Our argument utilizes the clinical setting of carotid atherosclerosis management where specific clinical questions are answered by using a variety of comparative effectiveness designs. Observational studies should not be ruled out when designing studies to address questions of comparative effectiveness.
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.