Caution: work in progress : While the methodological "revolution" deserves in-depth study, clinical researchers and senior epidemiologists should not be disenfranchised.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Bridging Classical Methodologies inMicroorganisms · 2024
   Review
2. Causal Inference in Environmental Epidemiology: Old and New Approaches.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2019
   Article
3. A note of thanks and an invitation.European journal of epidemiology · 2018
   Article
4. The Rotterdam Study: 2018 update on objectives, design and main results.European journal of epidemiology · 2017
   Article
5. The methodological 'revolution': caution accepted.European journal of epidemiology · 2017
   Article
6. For and Against Methodologies: Some Perspectives on Recent Causal and Statistical Inference Debates.European journal of epidemiology · 2017
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  The methodological 'revolution': caution accepted.2017

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as