Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26418866›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2015

Value of Information: A Tool to Improve Research Prioritization and Reduce Waste.

Cosetta Minelli, Gianluca Baio

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prioritizing Research in an Era of Personalized Medicine: The Potential Value of Unexplained Heterogeneity.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Prioritisation and design of clinical trials.European journal of epidemiology · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A Value of Information Analysis of Research on the 21-Gene Assay for Breast Cancer Management.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2019
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. When Is Enough, Enough? When Are More Observational Epidemiologic Studies Needed to Resolve a Research Question: Illustrations Using Biomarker-Cancer Associations.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Cosetta MinelliRespiratory Epidemiology, Occupational Medicine and Public Health, NHLI, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gianluca BaioDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a Guest Editorial, Cosetta Minelli and Gianluca Baio explain how VOI analysis can prioritize research projects by identifying uncertainty in existing knowledge and then estimating expected benefits from reducing that uncertainty.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDecision Support TechniquesInformation ServicesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID26418866
PMCPMC4587808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.