Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27942956›Full record

ReviewPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2017

Building on evidence to improve patient care.

Evelien Snauwaert, Johan VandeWalle, Evi V Nagler, Wim Van Biesen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Evelien SnauwaertDepartment of Paediatric Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Johan VandeWalleDepartment of Paediatric Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Evi V NaglerDepartment of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital 0K12IA, Ghent, Belgium.
Wim Van BiesenDepartment of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital 0K12IA, Ghent, Belgium. wim.vanbiesen@ugent.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is gaining importance in the current paediatric healthcare landscape. Improvement of paediatric health status is its major aim. However, for EBM to be successful, all stakeholders involved should understand what EBM really is, why and how EBM should or should not be practiced, and have the necessary skills to distinguish methodologically sound papers from biased opinion papers, and understand how and why guidelines are different from systematic reviews. Improving patient outcome requires attention to high-quality evidence and understanding of the processes of medical decision-making. Rigorous methodology is the cornerstone of guideline production, but in cases where quality evidence cannot be produced, as is often the case in paediatric nephrology because of low patient numbers, consensus-based guidance may be suitable to assist the practitioner at the bedside, as long as the underlying process is transparent. Most importantly, EBM should support patient involvement in a shared decision-making process. The more consistent and accurately predictable the effect of certain interventions is, clinically relevant to patients rather than affecting surrogate outcomes, and a priority for patients and other stakeholders, the more likely it is that adherence to the guidance provided will improve the outcome of patients.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPatient CareResearch DesignEvidence based medicineGuidelineHealth economyPaediatricShared decision makingSustainable treatment

Identifiers

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.