Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23804506›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2013

Evidence synthesis for decision making 1: introduction.

Sofia Dias, Nicky J Welton, Alex J Sutton, A E Ades

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 20 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

17 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

4 authors.

Sofia DiasSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK (SD, NJW, AEA)
Nicky J WeltonSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK (SD, NJW, AEA)
Alex J SuttonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK (AJS)
A E AdesSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK (SD, NJW, AEA)

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800800Medical Research Council G0802413Medical Research Council MC_U145079307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We introduce the series of 7 tutorial papers on evidence synthesis methods for decision making, based on the Technical Support Documents in Evidence Synthesis prepared for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit. Although oriented to NICE's Technology Appraisal process, which examines new pharmaceutical products in a cost-effectiveness framework, the methods presented throughout the tutorials are equally relevant to clinical guideline development and to comparisons between medical devices, or public health interventions. Detailed guidance is given on how to use the other tutorials in the series, which propose a single evidence synthesis framework that covers fixed and random effects models, pairwise meta-analysis, indirect comparisons, and network meta-analysis, and where outcomes expressed in several different reporting formats can be analyzed without recourse to normal approximations. We describe the principles of evidence synthesis required by the 2008 revision of the NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal and explain how the approach proposed in these tutorials was designed to conform to those requirements. We finish with some suggestions on how to present the evidence, the synthesis methods, and the results.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineBayesian meta-analysiscost-effectiveness analysissystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID23804506
PMCPMC3704205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.