ReviewGaceta medica de Mexico2019
De vuelta a la clínica. Métodos I. Diseños de investigación. Mayor calidad de información, mayor certeza a la respuesta.
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 4 papers.
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.
- [Comment on the article: "Incidence of pulmonary thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia"].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Article
- [Answer to "Comment on article: "Risk factors associated with cognitive impairment in older adults: cross-sectional study""].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024Article
- [Risk factors associated with cognitive impairment in aged: Cross-sectional study].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023Observational
- [Numerical expression of the clinical course of the disease. Data management].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research designs refer to the way information is obtained and are limited by ethical, economic and temporal viability. Research designs are standardized strategies to reduce biases, which in the architectural model of research are identified in the baseline state, the maneuver and the outcome; hence, there are no specific designs for each question. The design with the lowest probability of bias is the clinical trial, followed by cohort and case-control studies and, finally, by cross-sectional surveys. Among the main characteristics that give merit to research designs are the following: population inquiry, which refers to the situation of the population in relation to the clinical course/natural history of the disease; the maneuver, or action that is expected to modify the baseline state, which can be observational or experimental; follow-up, or documented monitoring that is given to each subject, which can be longitudinal or cross-sectional; and directionality, which can prolective or retrolective and refers to the timing of data collection for research purposes. It will always be better having a valuable question, even when answered with a design with higher risk of bias, than a question that is irrelevant or has no applicability.
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.