ReviewClinics in plastic surgery2013
The outcomes movement and evidence-based medicine in plastic surgery.
Review in Clinics in plastic surgery, 2013. 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.
- Review
- Reading between the Lines: A Plastic Surgeon's Guide to Evaluating the Quality of Evidence in Research Publications.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2019Article
- How You Become Who You Are: A New Concept of Beauty for Plastic Surgery.Archives of plastic surgery · 2015Article
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
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine is analyzed from its inception. This article takes the reader through the early formation of scientific medicine that has evolved into the multipurpose tool it has become today. Early proponents of evidence-based medicine and the outcomes movement, and their intentions, are presented. The work of David Sackett, Gordon Guyatt, Florence Nightingale, Ernest Codman, and Archie Cochrane is discussed, regarding how they perceived the need for better clinical outcomes that led to a more formalized evidence-based practice. The fundamentals are discussed objectively in detail, and potential flaws are presented that guide the reader to deeper comprehension.
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.