Current Anti-Doping Crisis: The Limits of Medical Evidence Employing Inductive Statistical Inference.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Doping Prevalence among U.S. Elite Athletes Subject to Drug Testing under the World Anti-Doping Code.Sports medicine - open · 2024
   Article
2. An Abductive Inference Approach to Assess the Performance-Enhancing Effects of Drugs Included on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021
   Review
3. Neurostimulation, doping, and the spirit of sport.Neuroethics · 2021
   Article
4. Commentary: Statistical Adhockeries Are No Criteria for Legal Decisions-The Case of the Expert Medical Report on the Assessment of Urine Specimens Collected Among Athletes Having Participated to the Vancouver and Sochi Winter Olympic Games.Frontiers in sociology · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Review of WADA Prohibited Substances: Limited Evidence for Performance-Enhancing Effects.2019

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as