ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2015
Invited commentary: future of population studies--defining research priorities and processes.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Future of Cardiovascular Epidemiology.Circulation · 2016Review
- Planning for the Future of Epidemiology in the Era of Big Data and Precision Medicine.American journal of epidemiology · 2015Review
- Acquisition, Analysis, and Sharing of Data in 2015 and Beyond: A Survey of the Landscape: A Conference Report From the American Heart Association Data Summit 2015.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2015Article
- Roger et al. respond to "future of population studies".American journal of epidemiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this issue of the Journal, an expert panel offers 7 recommendations on how population studies supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute contracts might be strategically transformed (Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(6):363-368). The Institute and its external advisors seemingly established this panel of epidemiologists and nonepidemiologists primarily to find ways to save research costs. Although the working group's recommendations offer reasonable approaches, we believe that, even in tough fiscal times, the main drivers of cardiovascular epidemiologic research must remain 1) scientific questions that are important and 2) study designs to match these. Although cardiovascular epidemiology admittedly is often redundant and needs to be more efficient, undue focus on administrative efficiency and cost savings will not necessarily guarantee cutting-edge population research.
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.