The potential role for sociologists in designing RCTs and of RCTs in refining sociological theory: A commentary on Deaton and Cartwright.

Chris Bonell, G J Melendez-Torres, Stephen Quilley

Abstract readComment

In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

Locating and testing the healthy context paradox: examples from the INCLUSIVE trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2022
Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial of a Multilevel Intervention to Address Social Determinants of Refugee Mental Health.American journal of community psychology · 2020
Trial
What can we learn from studying control arms of randomised VAW prevention intervention evaluations: reflections on expected measurement error, meaningful change and the utility of RCTs.Global health action · 2020
Article
A theory of change for community interventions to prevent domestic violence against women and girls in Mumbai, India.Wellcome open research · 2019
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

Comment on
Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials.2018

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Chris BonellProfessor of Public Health Sociology, Head of Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: chris.bonell@lshtm.ac.uk.

G J Melendez-TorresSenior Lecturer in Social Sciences and Health, DECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BD, UK. Electronic address: melendez-torresg@cardiff.ac.uk.

Stephen QuilleyAssociate Professor in Social and Environmental Innovation, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada. Electronic address: squilley@uwaterloo.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelSociologyRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29724460

DOI10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.045

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.