Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26880653›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2016

A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network.

Douglas G Altman, Iveta Simera

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 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

2 authors.

Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK doug.altman@csm.ox.ac.uk.
Iveta SimeraCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Medical Research Council MR/J00488X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalGuidelines as TopicHumansPublishingUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26880653
PMCPMC4793768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.