ReviewAcademic forensic pathology2016
Demystifying the Medical Literature.
Review in Academic forensic pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErrata.2017
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The published literature is not just the ongoing record of current medical and scientific knowledge; it is a record of the past and can give an eye toward future knowledge. Reading the published literature can give a view of the evolution of knowledge on a particular question, the growth of a discipline, the identification of new diseases, and the refinement of diagnostic tests. The reality is that most busy physicians read only the abstract of an article. The purpose of this article is to place published medical literature into a context and to provide some considerations for critically evaluating articles. This paper will provide historic background of evidence-based medicine and medical publications. Specific strategies for critical literature appraisal are highlights and pitfalls to avoid are outlined.
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.