Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23778425›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013

IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage.

Jonathan A Cook, Peter McCulloch, Jane M Blazeby, David J Beard, Danica Marinac-Dabic, Art Sedrakyan, IDEAL Group

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 14 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Robot-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy: systematic review and bibliometric analysis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2018
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Implementation of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Setting to National Practice.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jonathan A CookHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK. j.a.cook@abdn.ac.uk
Peter McCulloch
Jane M Blazeby
David J Beard
Danica Marinac-Dabic
Art Sedrakyan
IDEAL Group

Funding

Department of Health 06/301/233Medical Research Council G0800800Medical Research Council G1002292PHS HHS HHSF22321110172C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicInventionsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Procedures, OperativeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID23778425
PMCPMC3685513

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.