ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2017
Editorial: The Effect of Bias on Estimation of Improved Survival After Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus.
Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Professionals' views on the justification for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening: A systematic literature search and qualitative analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Review
- How I approach smoldering multiple myeloma.Blood · 2022Review
- Receipt of Serial Endoscopy Procedures Prior to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Diagnosis Is Associated with Better Survival.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Effects of iron chelation therapy on the clinical course of aceruloplasminemia: an analysis of aggregated case reports.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Adjustments for lead and length time bias has been used when examining apparent survival advantages from screening procedures. However, these estimates depend on several assumptions and are modeled from malignancies that are fairly common and large cohorts are available. In smaller retrospective cohorts, adjustments themselves may be based on estimates that may not be biological nor statistically accurate, which can lead to divergent results as has been found in several recent studies of screening in Barrett's esophagus. Only a prospective randomized controlled trial can really determine the benefit though this may not feasible.
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.