Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26784335›Full record

ReviewPLoS medicine2016

Sharing Individual Participant Data (IPD) within the Context of the Trial Reporting System (TRS).

Deborah A Zarin, Tony Tse

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 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. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Is it time for computable evidence synthesis?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  11. 10-Year Update on Study Results Submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov.The New England journal of medicine · 2019
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
    Article
  17. Linking quality indicators to clinical trials: an automated approach.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2017
    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.

Deborah A ZarinNational Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Tony TseNational Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationClinical Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualDrug IndustryHumans

Identifiers

PMID26784335
PMCPMC4718525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.