ReviewReproductive medicine and biology2012
Usefulness of statistics for establishing evidence-based reproductive medicine.
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology, 2012. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the last decade, evidence-based medicine has been described as a paradigm shift in clinical practice, and as "the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients". Appropriate statistical methods for analyzing data are critical for the correct interpretation of the results in proof of the evidence. However, in the medical literature, these statistical methods are often incorrectly interpreted or misinterpreted, leading to serious methodological errors and misinterpretations. This review highlights several important aspects related to the design and statistical analysis for evidence-based reproductive medicine. First, we clarify the distinction between ratios, proportions, and rates, and then provide a definition of pregnancy rate. Second, we focus on a special type of bias called 'confounding bias', which occurs when a factor is associated with both the exposure and the disease but is not part of the causal pathway. Finally, we present concerns regarding misuse of statistical software or application of inappropriate statistical methods, especially in medical research.
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.