ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Development and validation of a convenient formula evaluating the value and applicability of medical literature in clinical practice.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvidence-based medicine offers explicit methods to evaluate the evidence grades of literature. However, evidence grades do not meet all the practical needs of physicians. This study is aimed to develop a convenient method for evaluating the clinical value of medical literature from the perspective of the clinician.
methodsA literature applicability equation was formulated through the Delphi method and the analytic hierarchy process. A consistency check was used to ascertain the efficacy of the formula. Three senior clinicians assessed 30 articles based on their clinical experiences and subjective opinions, while one independent researcher performed independent assessments of the applicability of 30 articles using the evaluation formula.
resultsThe literature applicability equation was Y = 3.93X1 + 11.78X2 + 14.83X3 + 44.53X4 + 24.93X5, where Y = literature applicability, X1 = years since publication, X2 = target question covered or not, X3 = sample size, X4 = study type, and X5 = journal quality. Consistency index (CI) values for the first-level indicator ("literature applicability") and the second-level indicators ("pertinence and timeliness" and "quality of results") were 0.0325, 0.0012, and 0.0001, respectively. The weights used to calculate the matrix indicators had satisfactory accordance (random coincidence coefficient = 0.056). A consistency check for the efficacy of the formula revealed kappa = 0.749 and P < .001. Conclusion : The developed and validated literature applicability evaluation formula may be a useful and convenient tool for identifying clinically valuable medical literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.