Is representativeness the right question?

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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Cohort profile: DNA methylation in the Northern Ireland Cohort for the Longitudinal Study of Ageing (NICOLA) - recruitment and participant characteristics.BMJ open · 2024
   Article
2. A methodology for preprocessing structured big data in the behavioral sciences.Behavior research methods · 2023
   Article
3. Continuous population-level monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in a large European metropolitan region.iScience · 2023
   Article
4. Associations of functional health literacy with socioeconomic and demographic status among Filipinos.BMC public health · 2022
   Article
5. Generalizability and representativeness: Considerations for internet-based research on substance use behaviors.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2022
   Article
6. Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.American journal of epidemiology · 2019
   Article
7. Persistent arthralgia and related risks factors in laboratory-confirmed cases of Chikungunya virus infection in Mexico.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2017
   Article
8. Re: Some Thoughts on Consequential Epidemiology and Causal Architecture.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2017
   Article
9. The Author Responds.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2017
   Article
10. 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

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Representativeness is not helpful in studying heterogeneity of effects across subgroups.2014
• Comment on
  Why representativeness should be avoided.2013

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as