Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28351692›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2017

Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 5: a checklist for classifying studies evaluating the effects on health interventions-a taxonomy without labels.

Barnaby C Reeves, George A Wells, Hugh Waddington

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07098273 (Restoring Manual Dexterity in Multiple Sclerosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 93 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 23 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.

NCT07098273 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Restoring Manual Dexterity in Multiple Sclerosis: A Feasibility Study Combining Muscle Electrostimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation To Enhance Neuroplasticity

TypeinterventionalSponsorFondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi ETSRan2025 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsMultiple SclerosisArmsTMS and FES- based rehabilitation, FES-based rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Alcohol consumption and heart failure: a dose-response meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

33 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

3 authors.

Barnaby C ReevesClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Level 7 Queen's Building, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW, UK. Electronic address: Barney.Reeves@bristol.ac.uk.
George A WellsDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4W7.
Hugh WaddingtonInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 202-203, Rectangle One, D-4, Saket District Centre, New Delhi, 110017, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the study was to extend a previously published checklist of study design features to include study designs often used by health systems researchers and economists. Our intention is to help review authors in any field to set eligibility criteria for studies to include in a systematic review that relate directly to the intrinsic strength of the studies in inferring causality. We also seek to clarify key equivalences and differences in terminology used by different research communities. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingExpert consensus meeting.

resultsThe checklist comprises seven questions, each with a list of response items, addressing: clustering of an intervention as an aspect of allocation or due to the intrinsic nature of the delivery of the intervention; for whom, and when, outcome data are available; how the intervention effect was estimated; the principle underlying control for confounding; how groups were formed; the features of a study carried out after it was designed; and the variables measured before intervention.

conclusionThe checklist clarifies the basis of credible quasi-experimental studies, reconciling different terminology used in different fields of investigation and facilitating communications across research communities. By applying the checklist, review authors' attention is also directed to the assumptions underpinning the methods for inferring causality.

Indexed as

ChecklistEvaluation Studies as TopicResearch DesignDelivery of Health CareEconomicsHealth Services ResearchHumansNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicEvaluationHealth careHealth systemNonrandomizedQuasi-experimentalStudy design

Identifiers

PMID28351692
PMCPMC5669452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.