Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29922003›Full record

ReviewAustralian prescriber2018

Observational studies and their utility for practice.

Julia Fm Gilmartin-Thomas, Danny Liew, Ingrid Hopper

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Australian prescriber, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Methodological evaluation of bias in observational coronavirus disease 2019 studies on drug effectiveness.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Julia Fm Gilmartin-ThomasResearch Department of Practice and Policy, University College London, School of Pharmacy, London.
Danny LiewDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne.
Ingrid HopperDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

clinical registriesclinical trialsobservational studies

Identifiers

PMID29922003
PMCPMC6003013

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.