Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24384867›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2014

A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials.

Amit G Singal, Peter D R Higgins, Akbar K Waljee

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 276 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
276citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

276 citing papers in PubMed, 15 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. Guidelines of care for the management of actinic keratosis.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

216 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

3 authors.

Amit G Singal1] Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA [2] Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Peter D R HigginsDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Akbar K Waljee1] Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA [2] Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although efficacy and effectiveness studies are both important when evaluating interventions, they serve distinct purposes and have different study designs. Unfortunately, the distinction between these two types of trials is often poorly understood. In this primer, we highlight several differences between these two types of trials including study design, patient populations, intervention design, data analysis, and result reporting.

Identifiers

PMID24384867
PMCPMC3912314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.