Correction to: The uncertainty with using risk prediction models for individual decision making: an exemplar cohort study examining the prediction of cardiovascular disease in English primary care.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A combination of strongly associated prothrombotic single nucleotide polymorphisms could efficiently predict venous thrombosis risk.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023
   Article
2. Beyond the hype of big data and artificial intelligence: building foundations for knowledge and wisdom.BMC medicine · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  The uncertainty with using risk prediction models for individual decision making: an exemplar cohort study examining the prediction of cardiovascular disease in English primary care.2019

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract