Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24398253›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2014

Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices.

Vinay Prasad, John Pa Ioannidis

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 158 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

158 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. How much evidence is needed before additional testing is incentivised at scale?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

98 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

2 authors.

Vinay Prasad
John Pa IoannidisNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (VP) and Stanford Prevention Research Center, Departments of Medicine and Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Medical School Office Building, Room X306, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. jioannid@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Abandoning ineffective medical practices and mitigating the risks of untested practices are important for improving patient health and containing healthcare costs. Historically, this process has relied on the evidence base, societal values, cultural tensions, and political sway, but not necessarily in that order. We propose a conceptual framework to guide and prioritize this process, shifting emphasis toward the principles of evidence-based medicine, acknowledging that evidence may still be misinterpreted or distorted by recalcitrant proponents of entrenched practices and other biases.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationEvidence-Based MedicinePatient SafetyPractice Patterns, Physicians'Quality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID24398253
PMCPMC3892018

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.