ArticleClinical cardiology2012
The importance of matching language to type of evidence: avoiding the pitfalls of reporting outcomes data.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response.Chest · 2016Article
- Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention.BMC medical research methodology · 2015Article
- Attention to detail in the selection of words in epidemiologic research reports.American journal of epidemiology · 2014Article
- Statement on matching language to the type of evidence used in describing outcomes data.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2013Article
- Statement on matching language to the type of evidence used in describing outcomes data.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2013Article
- Statement on matching language to the type of evidence used in describing outcomes data.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2013Article
- Statement on matching language to the type of evidence used in describing outcomes data.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2012Article
- Statement on matching language to the type of evidence used in describing outcomes data.Clinical cardiology · 2012Article
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
Results from different types of clinical research studies provide different types of evidence for evaluating the effects of a new drug or intervention. For this reason, it is important to recognize this phenomenon during reporting and to choose appropriate language to match the type of study that was done, because this can become critical to the interpretation and application of the results in clinical practice. In this article, we aim to highlight this issue through a series of examples and provide some guidance on what the appropriate language for different types of studies should be.
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.