Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31056591›Full record

ReviewGaceta medica de Mexico2019

De vuelta a la clínica: sin justificación no existe pregunta de investigación que valga.

Juan O Talavera, Rodolfo Rivas-Ruiz, Marcela Pérez-Rodríguez, Ivonne Analí Roy-Garcia, Lino Palacios-Cruz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gaceta medica de Mexico, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Correlation: not all correlation entails causality].Revista alergia Mexico (Tecamachalco, Puebla, Mexico : 1993)
    Article
  2. [List of Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects].Revista alergia Mexico (Tecamachalco, Puebla, Mexico : 1993)
    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

5 authors.

Juan O TalaveraDirección de Enseñanza e Investigación, Centro Médico ABC. Ciudad de México, México.
Rodolfo Rivas-RuizInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Coordinación de Investigación en Salud, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Centro de Adiestramiento en Investigación Clínica. Ciudad de México, México.
Marcela Pérez-RodríguezInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Coordinación de Investigación en Salud, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Centro de Adiestramiento en Investigación Clínica. Ciudad de México, México.
Ivonne Analí Roy-GarciaInstituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Coordinación de Investigación en Salud, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Centro de Adiestramiento en Investigación Clínica. Ciudad de México, México.
Lino Palacios-CruzSecretaría de Salud, Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría "Dr. Ramón de la Fuente", Subdirección de Investigaciones Clínicas, Departamento Epidemiología Clínica. Ciudad de México, México.

Funding

Training Program in Research Ethics in the AmericasR25TW001605 · FIC · YESHIVA UNIVERSITY · PI LUNA, FLORENCIA · 2000 to 2025
$6.7M
FIC NIH HHS R25 TW001605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A clinical research question requires the concurrence of clinical experience and knowledge on methodology and statistics in that who formulates it. Initially, a research question should have a structure that clearly establishes what is that which is being sought (consequence or outcome), in whom (baseline status), and by action of what (maneuver). Subsequently, its reasoning must explore four aspects: feasibility and reasonableness of the questioning, lack of a prior answer, relevance of the answer to be obtained, and applicability. Once these aspects are satisfactorily covered, the question can be regarded as being "clinically relevant", which is different from being statistically significant, which refers to the probability of the result being driven by chance, which does not reflect the relevance of the question or the outcome. One should never forget that every maneuver entails adverse events that, when serious, discredit good results. It is imperative to have the possible answer estimated from within the structure of the question. The function of clinical research is to corroborate or reject a hypothesis, rather than to empirically test to find out what the outcome is.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalResearch DesignBiomedical ResearchHumansClinical research questionJustificaciónJustificationPregunta de investigación clínicaRelevanceRelevancia

Identifiers

PMID31056591
PMCPMC7446752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.