ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2015
Epidemiology research in rheumatology-progress and pitfalls.
Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 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.
- Clinical and Molecular Findings After Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation or Cyclophosphamide for Scleroderma: Handling Missing Longitudinal Data.Arthritis care & research · 2023Trial
- From Rheumatology 1.0 to Rheumatology 4.0 and beyond: the contributions of Big Data to the field of rheumatology.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2019Article
- Influence of IL6R gene polymorphisms in the effectiveness to treatment with tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2018Article
- Major involvement of bacterial components in rheumatoid arthritis and its accompanying oxidative stress, systemic inflammation and hypercoagulability.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidemiology research is a vital component of clinical studies in all medical fields. This Review provides a brief introduction to the methodology and interpretation of population and clinical epidemiology studies of musculoskeletal disorders. Data sources (including 'big data' and the issue of missing data), study design (cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies, including clinical trial design) and the interpretation of study results are discussed with examples from the field of rheumatology, particularly using findings in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Two or more treatments can be compared in clinical trials using a variety of study designs including superiority, noninferiority or equivalence. The different types of risk in epidemiological studies-absolute, attributable, background and relative-are important concepts in epidemiological research and their relative usefulness to clinicians and patients should be considered carefully. The potential pitfalls and challenges of generalizing the results of epidemiological studies to understanding disease aetiology and to clinical practice are also emphasized. The aim of the Review is to help readers to critically appraise published articles that use epidemiological designs or methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26150125What 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.