Adding tests to risk based guidelines: evaluating improvements in prediction for an intermediate risk group.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Assessing the Accuracy of a Deep Learning Method to Risk Stratify Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020
   Article
2. Noninvasive biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis, where do we stand?Journal of thoracic disease · 2020
   Review
3. Estimating the receiver operating characteristic curve in matched case control studies.Statistics in medicine · 2019
   Article
4. Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Among Women.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2018
   Article
5. Quantifying the added value of new biomarkers: how and how not.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as