ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2017
De-adoption and exnovation in the use of carotid revascularization: retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extra-Cranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Objective Analysis of the Available Evidence.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- Physician variation in the de-adoption of ineffective statin and fibrate therapy.Health services research · 2021Article
- Uptake of evidence by physicians: De-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents after the TREAT trial.BMC nephrology · 2021Article
- Patient and provider-level factors associated with changes in utilization of treatments in response to evidence on ineffectiveness or harm.International journal of health economics and management · 2020Article
- Fostering nursing innovation to prevent and control antimicrobial resistance using approaches from the arts and humanities.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2020Article
- Assessing provider and racial/ethnic variation in response to the FDA antidepressant box warning.Health services research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.