ArticleThe Hastings Center report2016
NFL Physicians: Committed to Excellence in Patient-Player Care.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Response to Commentaries.The Hastings Center report · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Football League Physicians Society read with disappointment the article "A Proposal to Address NFL Club Doctors' Conflicts of Interest and to Promote Player Trust." In spite of the authors' suggestions, NFL physicians are accomplished medical professionals who abide by the highest ethical standards in providing treatment to all of their patients, including those who play in the NFL. It defies logic for the authors not to have engaged experienced and active NFL physicians from the very start of their effort to explore, challenge, and recommend significant alterations to the delivery of health care to NFL players. As troubling as this article is from so many perspectives, it does represent an opportunity for the NFLPS to set the record straight and call attention to the excellent quality of care NFL players receive. In addition, it represents an opportunity to expose the extraordinarily weak evidence presented in the article and to refute the baseless allegations that challenge the high ethical standards of NFL physicians. Contrary to solid scientific research that starts with a hypothesis based on theory, in this case, it seems quite apparent that the authors started with a predetermined conclusion and set out to justify it. Their premise was flawed, and they failed in their execution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.