ArticleUpsala journal of medical sciences2019
Rationale for a Swedish cohort consortium.
Article in Upsala journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Federated privacy-protected meta- and mega-omics data analysis in multi-center studies with a fully open-source analytic platform.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Sharing sensitive data in life sciences: an overview of centralized and federated approaches.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- Growth prediction model for abdominal aortic aneurysms.The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We herein outline the rationale for a Swedish cohort consortium, aiming to facilitate greater use of Swedish cohorts for world-class research. Coordination of all Swedish prospective population-based cohorts in a common infrastructure would enable more precise research findings and facilitate research on rare exposures and outcomes, leading to better utilization of study participants' data, better return of funders' investments, and higher benefit to patients and populations. We motivate the proposed infrastructure partly by lessons learned from a pilot study encompassing data from 21 cohorts. We envisage a standing Swedish cohort consortium that would drive development of epidemiological research methods and strengthen the Swedish as well as international epidemiological competence, community, and competitiveness.
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.