Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25844127›Full record

ReviewKorean journal of anesthesiology2015

Statistical and methodological considerations for reporting RCTs in medical literature.

Sangseok Lee, Hyun Kang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Development and Usability Testing of a Decision Support App for Women Considering Breast Reconstruction Surgery.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. How to understand and conduct evidence-based medicine.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2016
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Escape from omnishambles in statistics: back to the basics.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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.

Sangseok LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7023-3668
Hyun KangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2844-5880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are known to provide the most reliable evidence on intervention. However, RCTs are often conducted and reported incompletely and inadequately, making readers and reviewers unable to judge the validity and reliability of the trials. In this article, we consider the statistical and methodological issues involved in reporting on RCTs, particularly in relation to the objectives, designs, and commencements of trials. This paper deals with the various issues that should be considered in presenting RCTs, and suggests checklists for reporting on them. We expect that these checklists will remind readers and reviewers to evaluate manuscripts systematically and comprehensively, making those manuscripts more transparent and reliable.

Indexed as

ChecklistMethodsRandomized controlled trialStatistics

Identifiers

PMID25844127
PMCPMC4384396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.