ReviewThe Journal of investigative dermatology2019
Research Techniques Made Simple: Interpreting Measures of Association in Clinical Research.
Review in The Journal of investigative dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive factors for postoperative outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Utilization of Computable Phenotypes in Electronic Health Record Research: A Review and Case Study in Atopic Dermatitis.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2025Review
- Beyond the "Dominant" and "Recessive" Patterns of Inheritance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Risk Factors for Pulmonary Embolism in Individuals Infected with SARS-CoV2-A Single-Centre Retrospective Study.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Article
- Physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
To bring evidence-based improvements in medicine and health care delivery to clinical practice, health care providers must know how to interpret clinical research findings and critically evaluate the strength of evidence. This requires an understanding of differences in clinical study designs and the various statistical methods used to identify associations. We aim to provide a foundation for understanding the common measures of association used in epidemiologic studies to quantify relationships between exposures and outcomes, including relative risks, odds ratios, and hazard ratios. We also provide a framework for critically assessing clinical research findings and highlight specific methodologic concerns.
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.