Rebuttal: When it comes to scientific inference, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Comparison of risk factor associations in UK Biobank against representative, general population based studies with conventional response rates: prospective cohort study and individual participant meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020
   Pooled it
2. Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials.Cancers · 2023
   Review
3. Clarifying the causes of consistent and inconsistent findings in genetics.Genetic epidemiology · 2022
   Review
4. On the efficacy of online drug surveys during the time of COVID-19.Substance abuse · 2020
   Article
5. Participation, retention, and associated factors of women in a prospective multicenter study on Chlamydia trachomatis infections (FemCure).PloS one · 2020
   Article
6. The second generation of The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC-G2): a cohort profile.Wellcome open research · 2019
   Article
7. Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations.International journal of epidemiology · 2018
   Article
8. The Author Responds.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2017
   Article
9. Re: Some Thoughts on Consequential Epidemiology and Causal Architecture.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2017
   Article
10. Moving on From Representativeness: Testing the Utility of the Global Drug Survey.Substance abuse : research and treatment · 2017
    Article
11. Is More Area-Level Crime Associated With More Sitting and Less Physical Activity? Longitudinal Evidence From 37,162 Australians.American journal of epidemiology · 2016
    Article
12. Recruitment via the Internet and social networking sites: the 1989-1995 cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014
    Article
13. Six persistent research misconceptions.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014
    Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Why representativeness should be avoided.2013
• Comment on
  Commentary: On representativeness.2013
• Comment on
  Commentary: Epidemiologists have debated representativeness for more than 40 years--has the time come to move on?2013
• Comment on
  Commentary: Representativeness is usually not necessary and often should be avoided.2013
• Comment on
  Commentary: Should we always deliberately be non-representative?2013

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as