Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26717316›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Dose-Response Analysis Using R.

Christian Ritz, Florent Baty, Jens C Streibig, Daniel Gerhard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,337 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,337citing 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

1,337 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Estimates of Critical Upper Maxima (CTEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article

1,277 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Christian RitzDepartment of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Florent BatyPneumology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Rorschacher Strasse 95, CH-9007 St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Jens C StreibigDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegård Allé 13, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark.
Daniel GerhardSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dose-response analysis can be carried out using multi-purpose commercial statistical software, but except for a few special cases the analysis easily becomes cumbersome as relevant, non-standard output requires manual programming. The extension package drc for the statistical environment R provides a flexible and versatile infrastructure for dose-response analyses in general. The present version of the package, reflecting extensions and modifications over the last decade, provides a user-friendly interface to specify the model assumptions about the dose-response relationship and comes with a number of extractors for summarizing fitted models and carrying out inference on derived parameters. The aim of the present paper is to provide an overview of state-of-the-art dose-response analysis, both in terms of general concepts that have evolved and matured over the years and by means of concrete examples.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalDose-Response Relationship, DrugAnimalsHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisLikelihood FunctionsModels, StatisticalNonlinear DynamicsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID26717316
PMCPMC4696819

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.