Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24308301›Full record

ArticleTrials2013

Trial-based clinical and economic analyses: the unhelpful quest for conformity.

David G T Whitehurst, Stirling Bryan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Economic evaluation alongside the Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT).Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2020
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
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

2 authors.

David G T WhitehurstFaculty of Health Sciences, Blusson Hall 10504, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada. david_whitehurst@sfu.ca.
Stirling Bryan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Where there is conformity across the findings, interpretation and implications of 'clinical' and 'economic' research, there is limited cause for concern. However, there is often unease when apparent contradictory conclusions are drawn from the same study. Given the ever increasing role for economic evaluation in healthcare decision making, this commentary challenges the necessity of compatibility between clinical and economic evaluation.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID24308301
PMCPMC4233716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.