ArticleStatistics in medicine2012
Commentary: How the debate about comparative effectiveness research should impact the future of clinical trials.
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 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.
- Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes of Veterans With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Enrolled in the COURAGE Trial Versus the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.The American journal of cardiology · 2022Trial
- 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
- Patient-centered or 'central' patient: Raising the veil of ignorance over randomization.Statistics in medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative effectiveness research represents the kind of research that arguably more directly affects clinical practice and policy. It includes observational studies, clinical trials, and systematic syntheses of existing literature. In this commentary, I argue for the ongoing and critical role of randomization in comparative effectiveness, noting the key differences between practical and explanatory trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23055180What 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.